draft environmental assessment - noaa … · research (oar), great lakes ... michigan field station...

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

Prepared for:

ADG Engineering

3909 W. Congress Street, Suite 201

Lafayette, LA 70506

Prepared by:

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

February 2018

[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing]

Executive Summary Draft Environmental Assessment

NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric

Research (OAR), Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), operates the Lake

Michigan Field Station (LMFS) in western Michigan. The purpose of GLERL is to conduct scientific

research on the Great Lakes and coastal ecosystems essential for understanding and developing future

ecological practices and decision-making. GLERL is comprised of 12 NOAA employees including

research professionals, a vessel crew, a marine superintendent and administrative personnel.

NOAA is proposing to demolish, remove and rebuild Building #3 at the LMFS due to structural

deformities and inadequate space for its current and continuing use as a marine laboratory and repository

for marine specimen storage. The proposed action would remedy serious structural deformities and other

challenges caused by foundation subsidence, and consolidate space for laboratory work and specimen

storage at LMFS to better meet its administration, office, maintenance and other storage functions.

Three action alternatives are being evaluated by NOAA per Section 102 of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) under 42 U.S. Code (USC) §4332, and Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions of NEPA at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

1500-1508.

Action Alternative 1 would provide a new 5,000 SF wood-frame, two-story structure that would set on

the existing building exterior foundation footprint. Action Alternative 2 would provide a new pre-

engineered metal 2-story structure placed on the existing building foundation footprint. Action

Alternative 3 would provide a new wood-frame, single-story structure placed on the existing building

foundation and cantilever out to provide square footage needed to meet a minimum space requirement of

4,500 SF. All Action Alternatives would provide for architectural consistency with nearby structures,

including Building #1. The No-Action Alternative is a condition in which LMFS Building #3 is not

replaced or removed.

NOAA has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) analyzing the potential environmental

consequences of implementing any one of three action alternatives, as well as effects of the No-Action

Alternative. In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, Environmental Review

Procedures for Implementing the NEPA, as amended April 2016 and the Companion Manual for NOAA

Administrative Order 216-6A, NOAA has analyzed and considered the potential environmental

consequences of its preferred action, the two viable action alternatives, and the No-Action Alternative,

before committing to a specific course of action. Should NOAA conclude that the EA supports a Finding

of No Significant Impact (FONSI), an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would not be required.

This EA identifies anticipated environmental consequences and, if applicable, presents mitigation

measures that could be expected to reduce environmental effects.

No significant effects to the resources analyzed in the environmental assessment would result. A

summary of anticipated impacts and recommended mitigation measures are presented in Table ES-1.



Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory ii

Table ES-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resources Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation

Land Use

Water Resources

Recreational Resources

Flora and Fauna

Wetlands

Floodplains

Coastal Zone Management

Farmlands

Noise

Transportation

Utilities and Solid Waste

Hazardous Materials

Environmental Justice

Cumulative

Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No mitigation measures are

recommended.



recommended.



recommended.

Air Quality Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect


Standard and customary BMPs during

construction should be applied to

minimize construction-related emissions.









Visual Impacts Action Alternative 1:

Minor effect


Minor effect


Minor effect



recommended.



recommended.



recommended.

Geological Resources Action Alternative 1:

Less than Significant






Best management practices would be

utilized for soil erosion control.







Cultural Resources Action Alternative 1:

Less than Significant Action Alternative 1:




Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory iii





recommended.



recommended.



recommended.

This Draft EA will be made available for public comment over a 30-day period, Wednesday, February 28 through Friday, March 30, 2018. An announcement in the Public Notices section of the Muskegon

Chronicle will be issued in printed and e-editions for seven days notifying the public of the availability

of the Draft EA on a NOAA website, with instructions provided for receiving a printed copy for

review and comment prior to the end of the comment period.

Comments received prior to the end of the 30-day comment period will be reviewed and considered by

NOAA. Where appropriate, these comments will be further addressed in a Final EA and considered in

advance of any determination by NOAA to issue a FONSI or prepare an EIS.



Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory iv


Table of Contents Draft Environmental Assessment


Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... I

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ V

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 1-7

2.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Action Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Action Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Action Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................ 3-1

4.0 AFFECTED RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................... 4-1 4.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Geological Resources ................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.4 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.5 Recreational Resources .............................................................................................................. 4-12 4.6 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4-14 4.7 Flora and Fauna .......................................................................................................................... 4-28 4.8 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 4-33 4.9 Floodplains ................................................................................................................................. 4-35 4.10 Coastal Zone Management ......................................................................................................... 4-39 4.11 Farmlands ................................................................................................................................... 4-43 4.12 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 4-45 4.13 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................ 4-50 4.14 Utilities and Solid Waste ............................................................................................................ 4-52 4.15 Visual Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 4-54 4.16 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 4-57 4.17 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................ 4-61 4.18 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................... 4-64

5.0 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS AND SUGGESTED MITIGATION ......................... 6-1

7.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................................... 8-1

9.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 9-1

Table of Contents Draft Environmental Assessment


Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1-1 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………...…1-2

Figure 1.1-2 Project Vicinity……………………………………………………………………….....1-3

Figure 1.1-3 Project Detail……………………………………………………………………………1-6

Figure 4.6-1 Muskegon Life-Saving Station, circa 1950…………………………………………....4-18

Figure 4.6-2 Muskegon Life-Saving Station, circa 1905…………………………………………....4-18

Figure 4.6-3 Area of Potential Effect………………………………………………………………..4-20

Figure 4.6-4 Building #1 (left), Building #2 (center), and Building #3 (right)……………………...4-21

Figure 4.6-5 Building #1, Southside………………………………………………………………...4-22

Figure 4.6-6 Building #1, North (left) and West (right) sides……………………………………….4-22

Figure 4.9-1 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map……………………………………………………..4-37

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1 Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation…………….ii

Table 4.6-1 Resources Surveyed in Study Area……………………………………………………4-19

Table 4.12-1 Anticipated Aggregate Construction Activity Noise…………………………………..4-47

Table 4.17-1 Population Change by Geographic Area………………………………………………4-61

Table 4.17-2 Racial Profile by Geographic Area…………………………………………………….4-62

Table 4.17-3 Socioeconomic Factors by Geographic Area………………………………………….4-62

Table 6.0-1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested Mitigation…………………………...6-1

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: List of Tribal Consultations Initiated and template of letter sent to tribes

Appendix B: Biological Site Inspection Photographs

Appendix C: Michigan Natural Feature Inventory Information

Appendix D: Reference Materials

List of Acronyms Draft Environmental Assessment


Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation

APE Area of Potential Effects

ANT Aids to Navigation

BGS Below Ground Surface

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMPs Best Management Practices

CAA Clean Air Act

CDA Critical Dune Areas

CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity

Generator

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program

DARD Department of Agricultural and Rural

Development

dB Decibel

dBA A-Weighted Decibel

DLARA Department of Licensing and

Regulatory Affairs

DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level

DPW Department of Public Works

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management

Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GCR General Conformity Rule

GLERL Great Lakes Environmental Research

Laboratory

GSF Gross Square Feet

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air

Conditioning

IGLD International Great Lakes Datum

Ldn Day-night sound level

LEED Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design

LMFS Lake Michigan Field Station

LOS Level of Service

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality

MDNR Michigan Department of Natural

Resources

MIOSHA Michigan Occupational Safety and

Health Administration

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Areas

MSP Michigan State Police

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation

Service

NREPA National Resources and Environmental

Protection Act

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSA Noise-sensitive Area

NWI Natural Wetland Inventory

O3 Ozone

List of Acronyms Draft Environmental Assessment


Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory viii

OAR Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric

Research

OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark

OSR Open Space Recreation District

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

Pb Lead

PM Particulate Matter

RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act

RECs Recognized Environmental Conditions

RMS Root-Mean-Square

SARDET Search and Rescue Detachment

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP State Implementation Plans

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SPL Sound Pressure Level

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TES Threatened and Endangered Species

U.S. United States

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDA United States Department of

Agriculture

USC United States Code

USCG United States Coast Guard

USDEA United States Drug Enforcement

Administration

USDOT United States Department of

Transportation

USEPA United States Environmental Protection

Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USNRC United States Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

UST Underground Storage Tank

VdB Decibels of root-mean-square vibration

velocity

WRD Water Resources Division

1 Purpose and Need Draft Environmental Assessment


Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 1-1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 Background


Research (OAR), Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), operates the Lake

Michigan Field Station (LMFS) in western Michigan (see Figure 1.1-1). The LMFS is located at the

channel entry between Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake in Muskegon, Michigan (see Figure 1.1-2).

The NOAA LMFS address is 1431 Beach Street, Muskegon, MI 49441-1098. The mission of this

GLERL field station is to promote and conduct long-term observations, field work, and freshwater

process studies essential for understanding and developing future ecological practices and decision-

making.

There are currently 12 NOAA employees assigned to the LMFS facility, which includes research

professionals, vessel crew, a marine superintendent and administrative personnel. Science at LMFS is

primarily focused on field-based long-term observations and field-based shorter-term process studies in

Lake Michigan. The LMFS facilities can also provide a base and accommodations for visiting

researchers from GLERL and partner agencies. There are three main structures, Buildings #1, #2 and #3,

plus two garage structures and vessel berths, at LMFS (see Figure 1.1-3). These assets support GLERL's

Ecosystem Dynamics theme with on-site offices, laboratory, and storage facilities, and direct access to

ship resources.

Assets at the LMFS provide a platform for long-term observations and research programs on Lake

Michigan and a home port for NOAA Great Lakes research vessels operating throughout the Great

Lakes. The proximity of the field station to Lake Michigan and its historic and recreational amenities

provides a unique opportunity for engagement with visitors, non-profit organizations, recreational users,

and members of the community. The LMFS also provides support to the local and regional community

by further developing NOAA’s role in freshwater ecology, ecosystems management, coastal

management, and water-based commerce.

Due to foundation subsidence, structural deformation and laboratory space inefficiencies, NOAA

GLERL is proposing to replace Building #3 at LMFS, used primarily for laboratory functions and

marine specimen storage. Building #3 presently supports to following functions:

Filtration Laboratory for water filtration, bottle preparation, and short-term sample storage

Dark Room for light-sensitive work and currently accommodates water maker and hood

Ancillary Office Space/Instrument Room available to technicians for data entry, instrumentation

set-up and uploading instrument data

Storage space for chemicals and archiving preserved samples

Field staging area to temporarily store field gear and prepare for vessel cruises

Auxiliary benchtop space for visiting scientists

55

88

90 294

355

194

496

80

290

94

80

65

69

57

94

196

96

75

43

ProjectLocation

AECO

M O

akla

nd C

A 12

/18/

2017

USE

R el

i.pop

uch

PATH

L:\

Proj

ects

\GIS

\Pro

ject

s\N

OAA_

Gre

atLa

kes_

ERL\

02_M

aps\

02_M

ap_P

rodu

ctio

n_an

d_R

epor

ts\P

relim

Stud

y\Fi

g1_P

roje

ctLo

catio

n.m

xd

0 50

Miles

Source: ESRI World Topographic Map, 2016.

Figure

ProjectLocation

AECO

M O

akla

nd C

A 12

/18/

2017

USE

R el

i.pop

uch

PATH

L:\

Proj

ects

\GIS

\Pro

ject

s\N

OAA_

Gre

atLa

kes_

ERL\

02_M

aps\

02_M

ap_P

rodu

ctio

n_an

d_R

epor

ts\P

relim

Stud

y\Fi

g2_P

roje

ctVi

cini

ty.m

xd

0 0.5

Miles

Source: ESRI World Topographic Map, 2016.

Figure




1.2 PROPOSED ACTION

NOAA is proposing to demolish and rebuild Building #3 at the LMFS. A recent facility condition

assessment of that structure has determined that it is undergoing gradual internal deformation, creating a

tripping hazard and uneven flooring. The occupied and storage spaces within the current facility are also

undersized and inefficient given its current and continuing use as a marine laboratory and repository for

marine specimen storage. The Proposed Action is to demolish and remove the 2,500 square-foot (SF)

building and its interior foundation slabs, replace soils beneath the interior foundation with engineering-

grade fill, install a replacement slab foundation inside the existing perimeter foundation and construct a

5,000 SF laboratory building within the existing footprint.

Extracted soils from under the existing building slabs would be tested by a soils engineer upon removal

and considered for reuse, blending or other treatments. Soil testing would examine contamination, and

load-bearing capacity, among other characteristics. Replacement soils would meet allowable soil

bearing values and geotechnical requirements. All materials removed from the site would be directed to

an approved, legal fill site location or as required by a Part 353 permit under the Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, administered by the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

For the design of Building #3, NOAA will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for

Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67) and have an SOI-qualified architectural historian conduct a review at 30%

Design, confirm design changes at the 60% Design, and approve the 90% Design drawings, particularly

for exterior elements. This process would be recorded in a memo to the project file. In general, to

substantively meet the SOI Standards, the proposed design of Building #3 would be compatible, but not

confused with, Building #1 (a structure eligible to the National Register of Historic Places). The

proposed design would neither closely imitate Building #1 to the point that an observer would believe it

was built in the same historic period, nor overwhelm Building #1’s setting with an obtrusive or

incompatible design. This action would avoid adverse effects under the National Historic Preservation

Act and NEPA relative to effects to historic structures.

Three action alternatives were identified that are expected to accomplish this Proposed Action.

Construction Activities and Schedule

The design and construction of the proposed replacement laboratory building would include demolition,

foundation removal, utility relocation, and the repurposing or recycling of materials followed by testing

and preparation of sandy soils within the foundation envelope. Following established design codes and

other engineering parameters, replacement of foundation slabs and construction of a wood or metal

framed structure would occur. This includes interior ceiling, flooring, doors, windows, partitions,

insulation, cabinetry, hardware, interior finishes, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC),

exhaust, electrical, plumbing, fixtures, appliances and exterior improvements, including site drainage,

landscaping, parking, lighting and security systems. The proposed building’s design goal is to achieve

Leadership in Engineering and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification.

A crane, backhoe, front loader, bobcat loader, and haul trucks would be mobilized for demolition and/or

construction, and any remnant or unnecessary underground utility infrastructure removed, over an

estimated construction period beginning July 18, 2018, through April 18, 2019. High-bay door




installation and utility/fire protection measures would be installed and connected, followed by

completion of interior framing, drywall, flooring and painting. During the construction work, NOAA

employees that work in Building #3 would be temporarily relocated to Building #1.

Existing parking areas, adjacent to Buildings #3 and Building # 2, would be used for material staging

during construction. The northern portion of the parking lot, adjacent to Building #1 and Building #2,

would remain open for NOAA employees to use. Additionally, NOAA employees could utilize street

parking and the public parking lot just east of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) station. Roughly10 feet of

driveway, between the staging area and fence located at the edge of the NOAA station, would be

maintained throughout the construction period to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the northern

portion of the parking lot and the Muskegon South Pierhead Lighthouse and jetty (see Figure 1.1-3).

Operation and Maintenance

Upon completion of construction activities, NOAA would move laboratory equipment, furniture and

storage containers into ready spaces and allow occupation by assigned personnel. A net increase of one

full-time equivalent staff would result from the proposed laboratory replacement. Operations at the

proposed facility would include laboratory analysis, specimen storage, and administrative/report

preparation tasks in support of freshwater marine fisheries and aquatic resource studies.

Periodic delivery of supplies would occur periodically (approximately quarterly) during operations and

to support laboratory functions and archival practices.

LAKE MICHIGAN

580'-0"582'-0"

584'-0"586'-0"

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 2

BUILDING 3Project

Location

Staging Area

AECO

M Oa

kland

CA 2/

20/2

018 U

SER e

li.pop

uch P

ATH L

:\Proj

ects\

GIS\P

rojec

ts\NO

AA_G

reatLa

kes_

ERL\

02_M

aps\

02_M

ap_P

roduc

tion_

and_

Repo

rts\P

relim

Study

\Fig3

_Proj

ectD

etail.m

xd

Project LocationStaging AreaExisting Fence

0 100Feet

Elevation Survey Source: Gibbens Drake Scott Engineering, 2017.Imagery Source: ESRI, June 2016.

NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmostpheric ResearchGreat Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

U.S. COASTGUARD STATION

NOAA GLERL:LAKE MICHIGAN FIELD STATION

Pere MarquettePark

Margaret DrakeElliot Park

VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (10-FT WIDE)

20181-6

Figure 1.1-3Project Detail

4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment




1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.3.1 Purpose

The purpose of the proposed action is to remedy serious structural deformities and other challenges

caused by foundation subsidence, and to consolidate space for laboratory work and specimen storage at

LMFS to better meet its administration, office, maintenance and other storage functions. A replacement

for Building #3 would provide an efficient, hazard-free work space that would complement the

surrounding GLERL campus of buildings, garages, storage areas and grounds.

1.3.2 Need

Building #3 is a 2,600 square foot pre-engineered steel building constructed circa 1970 (actual date is

unknown) and is used for storage and laboratory space. Based on a facility condition assessment report

prepared by Cardno Government Services Division in January 2017, and a foundational subsidence

analysis conducted in April 2016, it has been determined that Building #3 is in need of replacement due

to structural deterioration from subsidence below its interior foundation and is subject to further

degradation of its structural integrity. Subsidence and cracking of the interior floor foundation,

consisting of four independent concrete slabs within to a perimeter foundation, has created trip hazards

at the exterior doors and caused damage to interior walls. An assessment of the Building #3 foundation,

conducted by a Structural Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant found the following:

The subsidence appears to be due to the existing soils below the slab being

improperly prepared during construction of the building. The structure shows no

signs of stress in the framing or siding, and visible connections of columns and

beams were observed to be properly aligned, and the perimeter foundation

appears to have remained at its original elevation while the interior slabs have

subsided.

GLERL personnel have indicated that the layout of the existing building is not optimum for its current

use and existing building services. When evaluated against the laboratory programs and facilities needed

for existing fisheries research efforts at LMFS, the laboratory and storage functions currently at Building

#3 are both undersized and inefficient. In addition, electrical and HVAC systems have little or no

capacity for future expansion of laboratory work.

Given these limitations, a complete replacement of Building #3 is proposed. The OAR and PPMD have

determined that, with proper design and layout, an approximately 5,000 SF structure will meet the

LMRL research and storage needs for a Building #3 replacement.

NEPA Analysis

Per Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) under 42 U.S. Code [USC]

§4332, and Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions of

NEPA at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, NOAA has prepared this Environmental

Assessment (EA) analyzing the potential environmental consequences of implementing any one of two

action alternatives, as well as effects of the No-Action Alternative. In accordance with NOAA




Administrative Order 216-6A, Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and the

associated Companion Manual, and Executive Orders 11988, Floodplain Management, and 11990,

Protection of Wetlands, NOAA has analyzed and considered the potential environmental consequences

of its proposed action under three viable action alternatives, and the No-Action Alternative, before

making a commitment to a specific course of action. A No-Action Alternative is presumed to be a

condition in which the operations continue until occupancy is no longer considered appropriate due to

impending structure instability or failure.

This EA identifies anticipated environmental consequences and, if applicable, presents mitigation

measures that could be expected to reduce environmental effects. Should NOAA conclude that the EA

supports a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would

not be required.

2 Action Alternatives Draft Environmental Assessment



2.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES

To achieve its Proposed Action and meet the design criteria and space requirements for GLERL, three

action alternatives, a preferred action and two viable action alternatives are being evaluated by NOAA in

addition to a no-action alternative, as required under NEPA.

2.1 ACTION ALTERNATIVE 1

Provide a new 5,000 SF wood-frame, two-story structure that would be set on the existing building

exterior foundation footprint. Provide for architectural consistency with nearby structures, including

Building #1, as appropriate.


Provide a new pre-engineered metal two-story structure that would be set on the existing building

foundation footprint. Provide for architectural consistency with nearby structures, including Building #1,

as appropriate.


Provide a new wood-frame, single-story structure that would be set on the existing building foundation

and cantilevers out to provide square footage needed to meet a minimum space requirement of 4,500 SF.

Provide for architectural consistency with nearby structures, including Building #1, as appropriate.

2.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No-Action Alternative is a condition in which LMFS Building #3 is not replaced or removed. The

existing operations at this structure would continue indefinitely until a change is required in response to

eventual degradation of the structure and its habitability.

2 Action Alternatives Draft Environmental Assessment




3 Existing Environment Draft Environmental Assessment



3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The GLERL LMFS is a NOAA research facility located in Muskegon, MI. The LMFS property was

originally developed in 1905 by the U.S. Life Saving Service. The facility was transferred to the USCG

in 1915 and then to NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) branch in 1990. The

LMFS currently has three main occupied buildings.

Building #1, which houses administrative offices and some laboratory space, is a two-

story wood-framed structure at the north end of the site. It was constructed prior to 1905,

then renovated in 2003, restoring the historic exterior appearance of the structure.

Building #2, which provides storage and shop space for vessel maintenance, is located in

the center portion of the site. The original building is a 2 story concrete block structure,

constructed in the mid-1970s, then renovated in 2013. A high-bay pre-engineered steel

building addition was also constructed in 2013.

Building #3 is a typical pre-engineered steel building, measuring 40 feet (north-south) by

65 feet (eastwest). There is a perimeter footing, with eight integral spread footings

supporting the columns (one at each corner and two at equal spaces along each of the

long sides). The roof of the building is framed with steel beams and purlins supporting a

steel panel roof with batt insulation. The exterior walls are framed with steel wind girts

spanning between the columns, with steel panel siding and batt insulation. The interior

walls are predominantly wood stud-framed with a variety of finishes including gypsum

wallboard, plywood and metal panels.

According to an April 2016 Draft Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

report by ESC Midwest, LCC, the Sand “FILL” soils encountered immediately below the Building #3

floor slabs and to depths ranging from about 5½ to 6½ feet below the floor slab, where groundwater was

encountered, and did not exhibit any odors or other obvious evidence of having been impacted by

contaminants, leaking sewer or water lines.

A parking area and driveway are located immediate to the east of the site, with the USCG Station

Muskegon further east beyond the property fence. The west side contains large rock rip-rap and the Lake

Michigan shoreline. To the north are the remaining structures within LMFS campus and the waterway

between Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake. Refer to Figure 1.1-3 for an aerial view of the area at and

near Building #3.

3 Existing Environment Draft Environmental Assessment







4.0 AFFECTED RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section describes the existing conditions for key resource topics, the anticipated environmental

consequences from implementation of the Proposed Action (at each alternative) and the No-Action

Alternative, and any mitigation measures that would avoid, reduce, or minimize any adverse effects of

the Proposed Action.

4.1 LAND USE

4.1.1 Regulatory Setting

The City of Muskegon Master Land Use Plan, adopted on April 1997, is a tool used by local land use

planners to guide the process of administering zoning and other land ordinances; developing,

coordinating and preparing specialized plans; addressing issues such as neighborhoods, natural resources

and land development proposals; analyzing future use; and augmenting current land development

regulations.

The project site area has been designated by the City of Muskegon’s Zoning Ordinance as an Open

Space Recreation Districts (OSR), which is intended to provide permanent spaces in the City for

recreational activities including: hiking, biking, jogging or ski trails; fishing docks and piers; parks,

playgrounds and playfields and wildlife preserves. Special land uses must be permitted by the City. The

intent of the Recreation Districts zoning is to allow mixed land uses which are compatible to each other,

while prohibiting uses which would not be compatible or harmonious with permitted uses (City of

Muskegon, 2012).

The Public Buildings Amendments of 1988 (40 USC 601), Public Law 100-678, requires a federal

agency to comply with a nationally recognized model building code and other applicable nationally

recognized codes, such as electrical, life safety, and plumbing codes. Federal agencies shall consider

state or local zoning and similar laws and consult with appropriate officials and make plans available

upon request. State and local government may make recommendations and the federal agency should

give due consideration to those recommendations and local conditions. However, no action, fine or

penalty may be brought against the federal government for failure to meet the requirements of this

Public Law, or for failure to carry out any State or local government recommendation.

Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Program, directs federal agencies to

provide opportunities for consultation to elected officials of state and local governments and to provide

state and local officials the opportunity to comment on actions that could affect their jurisdictions. The

EO was issued with the intent to foster intergovernmental partnership and to increase the reliance of

state and local processes coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct

federal development (OMB, 2015).

4.1.2 Affected Resources

The project site is located at 1431 Beach Street, Muskegon, Michigan. The site is located adjacent to the

eastern shore of Lake Michigan. Immediately north of the project area at Building #3 are NOAA’s other




LMFS facilities and buildings, including Building #1, Building #2, a garage structure and a storage

shelter.

To the east of the LMFS is USCG Station Muskegon, one of only six stations in the Coast Guard with

both aids to navigation and Search and Rescue capabilities. To the north of LMFS is a public walkway

to the Muskegon South Pierhead Lighthouse and the Muskegon Ship Channel. To the south is

undeveloped recreational areas and lake beachfront. To the west is Lake Michigan. The surrounding

community is mainly comprised of dune and beachfront properties, City parks, and residential

developments. The City of Muskegon’s Zoning Ordinance has designated the general area as OSR

District. The project site within LMFS is currently occupied by Building #3, used as a laboratory and

marine specimen storage facility.

4.1.3 Environmental Consequences

Action Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)

The Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the City of Muskegon’s allowable land use and

associated restrictions. The area is zoned for recreational oriented facilities. However, special land uses

are permitted under the purview of Section 2332 after review and approval of the use. The LMFS

facilities have been an allowable use by the City as NOAA’s LMFS since 1990 and as a USCG station at

this location since 1905 (US Coast Guard, no date). The proposed replacement building at Building #3

would meet City building height, setback and site coverage requirements per its OSR zoning. In

addition, NOAA intends to seek review and input from local building officials regarding the design and

architecture of the proposed construction project and adhere to local recommendations to the extent

practicable. There would be no change in land use and no adverse effect to existing city, state or federal

land uses under the Preferred Alternative.

The proposed action at this alternative would result in no adverse effect to land use.

Action Alternative 2

Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Action Alternative 2 would be consistent with the City of

Muskegon’s Master Land Use Plan and zoning requirements, since the current use of the site would

remain unchanged.

The Action Alternative 2 would result in no adverse effect to land use.


Except for the potential for articulated structural elements extending beyond existing lot boundaries

under NOAA control, Action Alternative 3 would be consistent with the City of Muskegon’s Master

Land Use Plan and zoning requirements, since the current use of the site would remain unchanged.

The Action Alternative 3 would result in no adverse effect to land use.




No-Action Alternative

Under No-Action Alternative, the demolition and rebuilding of Building # 3 would not occur. No

adverse effects to existing land use would result.

4.1.4 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures are required for each of the Action Alternatives or for the No-Action

Alternative in relation to land use management.




4.2 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES


The GLERL facility is situated on the shore of Lake Michigan in a designated Critical Dune Area

(CDA), but not located within a designated high risk erosion area. It is surrounded by critical dune, high

risk erosion, and local recreational areas. The facility is Public Act 451 of 1994 includes provisions in

Part 323 for the protection and management of shorelands within the State of Michigan, in particular,

those located in environmental sensitive or areas subject to erosion. A Part 353 permit under the Natural

Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, is required for the removal and construction

of new structures in CDA (MDEQ, 2003). A MDEQ/USACE Joint Permit Application would be used to

describe and quantify proposed activities regulated by the MDEQ and/or the USACE. A Soil Erosion

permit is required before a Part 353 permit can be issued (Occhipinti, 2018).


The GLERL facility is located south of the Muskegon Ship Channel on the shore of Lake Michigan.

Quaternary geology in this area is predominantly dune sand underlain by the Marshall Formation

(bedrock). Major geologic units found in Muskegon County consist of the Marshall Sandstone,

Michigan Formation, Coldwater Shale, and Bayport Limestone, all Mississippian in age. The Marshall

Formation overlies the Coldwater Shale (conformably) and underlies the Michigan Formation

(conformably) and is primarily comprised of gray to tan fine to coarse grained sandstone with minor

amounts of siltstone. Maximum thickness of the Marshall formation is found within the center of the

Michigan basin decreasing towards the rim. Outcrops of the Marshall Formation are typically found

within the southern rim of the basin. Quaternary geology is comprised of dune sand. Geotechnical

reports prepared for recent renovations to the adjacent Building #2 at LMFS indicate loose to very loose

sands to a depth of at least 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). General Quaternary geology of

Michigan is comprised of glacial till, which likely exists beneath the dune sand.

The GLERL facility at LMFS is located within the Central Stable Tectonic Region, an area of low

seismic activity. Therefore, the probability of liquefaction of the soils at the site due to seismic activity

is low.



No adverse impacts to geological resources or high risk erosional areas are anticipated for the

reconstruction of Building #3 under Action Alternative 1. As described under Section 1.2, Proposed

Action, extracted soils from under the existing building slabs would be tested for removal and/or reuse,

blending or other treatments, by a soils engineer. Soils would have to meet allowable soil bearing values

and design recommendations and would be tested to examine contamination, strength, load-bearing

capacity among other characteristics. All materials removed from the site would have to go to an

approved, legal fill site location or as required under a Part 353 permit from MDEQ. A Soil Erosion

permit and Part 353 permit will be required before the removal and construction of Building #3

commences to ensure proper management and protection of environmental sensitive areas.




Additionally, a submittal of draft and final design specifications to the Water Resources Division

(WRD) is recommended to confirm this finding remains accurate prior to project implementation.

The project would comply with Part 353, Sand Dune Protection and Management Act and best

management practices (BMPs) would be utilized for soil erosion control. Therefore, impacts to

geological resources would be less than significant.


The project would comply with Part 353, Sand Dune Protection and Management Act and BMPs would

be utilized for soil erosion control. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, impacts to geological resources

or high risk erosional areas from the reconstruction of Building #3 under Action Alternative 2 would be

less than significant.


The project would comply with Part 353, Sand Dune Protection and Management Act and BMPs would

be utilized for soil erosion control. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, impacts to geological resources

or high risk erosional areas from the reconstruction of Building #3 under Action Alternative 3 would be

less than significant.


Under No-Action Alternative, the demolition and rebuilding of Building #3 would not occur. No adverse

effects to geological resources would result.


BMPs would be utilized for soil erosion control.




4.3 AIR QUALITY


Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) identifies air pollutants that cause or contribute to the endangerment of human health

and or environmental welfare, and establishes air quality “criteria” that guide the establishment of air

quality standards to regulate these pollutants (42 U.S.C. §7408 - §7409). To date, USEPA has

established such criteria for six air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide

(NO2), ozone (O3), fine and respirable particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2),

and has subsequently promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) meant to

safeguard public health (i.e., primary NAAQS) and environmental welfare (i.e., secondary NAAQS).

For the purposes of appraising compliance with the NAAQS, and conjunction with the MDEQ, USEPA

collects and evaluates ambient (i.e., “outdoor”) monitoring data on a geographic basis, delineated by

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) or Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) established by the U.S.

Office of Management and Budget and U.S. Census Bureau. From each ambient monitor within a

CBSA/MSA, USEPA derives criteria pollutant design values, which are statistics that describe the air

quality status of a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. Areas where monitored ambient air

concentrations (i.e., design values) are within an applicable NAAQS are considered in attainment of that

NAAQS. If sufficient data are not available to make a determination, the area is instead deemed

attainment/unclassifiable. Areas where monitored ambient air concentrations exceed the NAAQS are

designated by USEPA as nonattainment areas. Lastly, areas that have historically violated the NAAQS,

but have since instituted controls and programs that have successfully remedied these violations are

known as maintenance areas.

States with nonattainment areas within their jurisdiction are charged with developing air quality control

plans, called State Implementation Plans (SIP), that include strategies and measures to bring the area

back into compliance with the NAAQS by an USEPA-prescribed regulatory deadline, or maintain

compliance once attainment is achieved.

The USEPA promulgated a General Conformity Rule (GCR) (Section 110 of the CAA and Title 40 CFR

Part 51.853) that requires responsible federal agencies to make a determination of conformity with the

SIP for a major undertaking. Each federal action within a non-attainment or maintenance area must be

reviewed to determine whether it (1) qualifies for an exemption listed in the GCR; (2) results in

emissions that are below GCR de minimis emissions thresholds (e.g., 100 tons per year for VOC, NOX,

PM2.5, and 25,000 tons per year for CO2); or (3) would produce emissions above the GCR de minimis

thresholds applicable to the specific area, requiring a detailed air quality conformity analysis.

On December 7, 2009, the Final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases

under Section 202(a) of the CAA was signed. The endangerment finding states that current and

projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGs in the atmosphere—carbon dioxide (CO2),

methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride—threaten the

public health and welfare of current and future generations. Furthermore, it states that the combined

emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines

contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare (USEPA, 2010d).




The EPA has moved forward under the endangerment finding by developing vehicle emission standards

under the CAA. The EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration have issued a joint proposal to establish a national program consisting of new emission

standards for light-duty vehicles, model year 2012 through 2016, that will reduce GHG emissions and

improve fuel economy. This proposal marks the first GHG standards proposed by the EPA under the

CAA as a result of the endangerment and cause or contribute findings.

On February 18, 2010, the CEQ released draft guidance on the consideration of GHG in federally

proposed actions. The draft guidelines include a presumptive threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon

dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions from a proposed action to trigger a quantitative analysis. However,

the document does not provide guidance on when to determine GHG emissions are “significant’ for

NEPA purposes, but rather poses the question to the public (CEQ, 2010).


According to the MDEQ, the entire state of Michigan is in attainment for and therefore meeting the

NAAQS for the following pollutants:

Ozone

Nitrogen Dioxide

Lead

Carbon Monoxide

Particulate Matter

Only areas located in and near Detroit, Michigan are in nonattainment for sulfur dioxide and have an

approved SIP for sulfur dioxide.

The Proposed Action in Muskegon, Michigan, is an area presently designated as in attainment with

respect to all NAAQS; therefore, the General Conformity regulations do not apply to the Proposed

Action (Action Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) and the No-Action Alternative.



Action Alternative 1 includes demolition and complete removal of the Building #3 structure and interior

foundation slabs. A replacement foundation and supporting soil layer would be installed inside the

existing perimeter foundation and a 5,000 SF laboratory building constructed within the footprint of the

current building. Demolition would result in releases of dust and exhaust emissions from equipment

used for the removal of pavement, utility connections, and other appurtenances. During demolition and

construction, equipment would include crane, backhoe, front loader, bobcat loader, and haul trucks over

an estimated 4-6 month period. Operations, including the extent of use of air exhaust equipment, at the

proposed facility would be similar to those currently conducted at the existing Building #3. A net

increase of one full-time equivalent staff would result from the proposed laboratory replacement; a

potential de minimus source of auto emissions.




Construction-related emissions are temporary in nature and occur due to (1) construction equipment and

vehicle operations, and (2) demolition, earthworks, ground disturbance and paving activities. Building

#3 would be designed to meet LEED Silver standards and reduce GHG emissions. The limited area,

duration and intensity of construction would be temporary and short-term. Long-term air quality effects

pertain to the emissions associated with the operation of Building #3 and support equipment. Operations

at Building #3 would result in similar emissions as existing operations, resulting in no significant net

increase of emissions in the air shed of the Proposed Action at Action Alternative 1. Emissions resulting

from construction and operations would be de minimus and not cause the air basin to be in

nonattainment/nonconformity.

No adverse impacts to air quality would result from implementation of Action Alternative 1.


Alternative 2 would result in similar construction–related air emissions as Alternative 1. The limited

area, duration and intensity of construction would be temporary and short term. Operational air

emissions would be the same as Alternative 1and equivalent to emissions as existing operations,

resulting in no significant net increase of emissions. Emissions resulting from construction and

operations would not cause the air basin to be in nonattainment/nonconformity.



Construction and operational air emissions under Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1 and not

result in a significant net increase of emissions in the air shed. Emissions resulting from construction

and operations would not cause the air basin to be in nonattainment/nonconformity.



Under the No-Action Alternative, no construction-related emissions would occur. Emissions associated

with NOAA operations would remain unchanged. No increase in GLERL staff at LMFS would occur.

The existing Building #3 is not attain the goals of LEED Silver certification or meet the associated

benefits of improved technology and efficiency of space, including reduced energy and environmental

design associated with air emissions.

No adverse impacts to air quality would result under the No-Action Alternative.


The Proposed Action, and the No-Action Alternative, is located in an area considered by USEPA as

attainment with respect to the NAAQS. No air quality thresholds for a significant impact would be

exceeded. No mitigation measures are required.




However, standard and customary BMPs during construction should be applied to minimize

construction-related emissions, including (but not limited to) dust suppression on unpaved areas,

minimization of vehicle and equipment idling, covering of materials stockpiles, and recycling

construction and demolition materials where possible.




4.4 WATER RESOURCES


Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has

jurisdiction of waters of the U.S., including Lake Michigan and the Muskegon River channel, piers,

breakwalls, and Point Betsie lighthouse. The MDEQ regulates water quality in the State of Michigan

including storm water, point, and non-point discharge. Direct discharges to surface water are regulated

by the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

In Michigan, the Federal Water Pollution Control Action amendments of 1972 initiated the NPDES

permit process. In October of 1973, the EPA delegated authority to administer and carry out this

program to Michigan. This act requires discharge permits in order to utilize public resources for waste

disposal. It also limits the amount of pollutants that may be discharged. Construction activities which

disturb one or more acres of land and/or have a point source discharge of storm water to waters of the

state (streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands) are required to obtain a NPDES) permit from the MDEQ

WRD.

Also, construction projects in close proximity to Lake Michigan are subject to the Construction Storm

Water Program and Part 91 “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control” (SESC) of Act 451 regulations. Under

Part 91, any construction activity within 500 feet of waters of the state, or disturbing one or more acres,

must obtain Part 91 coverage via an SESC permit (unless designated an Authorized Public Agency

(APA) and NPDES coverage. The WRD has adopted a process called "Permit-by Rule" (Rule 2190,

promulgated under Part 31, NEPA) for issuing the necessary storm water coverage. Automatic storm

water coverage is received upon obtaining a Part 91 permit (or undertaking the project as an APA).

Although the coverage is automatic, the permittee shall comply with the requirements of Permit by Rule.


The GLERL facility is located within the Muskegon River watershed. Surface runoff discharges directly

into Lake Michigan, which bounds the site to the west. Uppermost soils beneath the site are comprised

of loose to medium density sand fine to medium grained sands. The relative hydraulic conductivity of

sand is 10-7 to 10-2 (m/s), with a saturated conductivity of 4.234-5 to 14.114-5 as described by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey. Observed depth to groundwater is 7.5 feet bgs and is

hydraulically controlled by the surface water elevation of Lake Michigan.

The Muskegon river ship channel bounds the site to the north and is connected to Muskegon Lake.

Muskegon Lake is an approximately 4,150 acre freshwater lake fed by the Muskegon River, which

originates at Houghton Lake. Muskegon Lake is also fed by Ruddiman Creek, Ryerson Creek, and the

Bear Lake Channel. Waters from Muskegon Lake flow through the Muskegon Ship Channel and into

Lake Michigan.






Any excavation proximal to a surface water body of the State introduces the potential for increased

sedimentation as surface water runoff. Increased sedimentation to a surface water body decreases water

quality. A permit under Part 91 SESC would be required and would invoke NPDES coverage. Under

Action Alternative 1, permissible surface water runoff is not expected to increase since no additional

impermeable surface area would be installed.

The required excavation for the replacement of Building 3 is anticipated to be installed to the same

location and depth as the existing structure. Given the relatively shallow depth and limited extent of

excavation, groundwater flow towards Lake Michigan is not expected to be affected either during or

after construction activities. SESC control measures will be inspected weekly and within 24 hours of a

significant rain event by a certified storm water operator. An SESC permit will be obtained by the

Muskegon County Department of Public Works and a NPDES permit for discharging storm water will

be obtained via Permit by Rune from the MDEQ WRD.

Potable water at the GLERL facility and surrounding parcels is supplied to the site via the City of

Muskegon public water supply and is not likely to be affected by construction activities.

No adverse effects to surface or groundwater resources, including man-made resources, would result due

to implementation of Action Alternative 1.


The effects of Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. No adverse effects to

surface or groundwater resources, including man-made resources, would result due to implementation of

Action Alternative 2.


The effects of Alternative 3 would be the analogous to those under the Preferred Alternative. A

negligible increase in surface area would be present to capture stormwater runoff and be discharged off-

site. An NPDES permit would be required from the MDEQ Water Resource Division.

No adverse effects to surface or groundwater resources, including man-made resources, would result due

to implementation of Action Alternative 3.


No adverse effects to water resources would result under the No-Action Alternative.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures are required or recommended.




4.5 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES


National, state and regional recreational resources incorporate established parks, hiking trails, camping,

boating and touring facilities potentially affected by the Proposed Action. Local or regional recreational

resources may include city, county and tribal owned facilities and properties, or locations informally

established for recreational activities. The project site area has been designated by the City of

Muskegon’s Zoning Ordinance as an OSR, which is intended to provide permanent spaces in the City

for recreational activities including: hiking, biking, jogging or ski trails; fishing docks and piers; parks,

playgrounds and playfields and wildlife preserves. Other uses must be permitted by the City (City of

Muskegon, 2016).


The project site is located in the OSR District, situated on an artificial landform between Lake Michigan

and Muskegon Lake. Two city parks, Margaret Drake Elliot Park and Pere Marquette Park, are located

adjacent to the both the LMFS and US Coast Guard (USCG) Station Muskegon to the east and south,

respectively. Lighthouse Park is located less than a half of a mile from the project site to the northeast.

The NOAA station is adjacent to a pier located northwest of the site. At the end of the pier is the

Muskegon South Pierhead Lighthouse, which is accessible to the public via a pedestrian walkway

between the GLERL LMFS and USCG Station Muskegon. The lighthouse has tours during the summer

and fall months in which pedestrian access is accommodated through the LMFS asphalt parking area via

marked walkway and signage. The Pierhead is utilized for fishing year-around. There is a recreational

and commercial harbor located less than a one-half mile east of the GLERL LMFS. Additionally, there

is the Muskegon State Park Channel Campground and Muskegon State Park located on the opposite

shore of the entry channel between Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake.



Action Alternative 1 would involve the demolition and replacement of Building #3 and would not

change the current land area or use of marine laboratory facilities within the project site. Construction

and operation at the project site would not interfere or displace existing recreational resources or

opportunities to expand those resources nearby. Existing coastal access and shoreline recreation areas

would not be disrupted. Roughly 10 feet of asphalt through the LMFS parking area connecting Beach

Street to the Muskegon South Pierhead Lighthouse and jetty would be maintained throughout

construction period to provide public access to the Muskegon South Pierhead (see Figure 1.1-3).

Action Alternative 1 would have no adverse effect upon recreational resources.


The effects of Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. No adverse environmental

effects with respect to recreational resources would result from the proposed Action Alternative 2.






effects with respect to recreational resources would result from the proposed Action Alternative 3.



adverse effects to recreational resources would result.


No mitigation measures are required for each of the three Action Alternatives or for the No-Action

Alternative in relation to recreational resources.




4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES


This section addresses cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed project. Cultural

resources include heritage-related resources defined in several federal laws, including the National

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The NHPA focuses on historic properties such as prehistoric and

historic sites, buildings, structures, objects, or districts that are related to significant human activity.

Historic properties are listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Because federal funding would be required for project improvements, compliance with the following

applicable laws is required:

Section 106 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306108) and its implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. §

800)

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 469–469(c)-2)

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 470(a)-11)

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. § 1996)

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. §§ 3001–

3013)

American Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 431–433)

Section 106 of the NHPA requires NOAA to take into account the effect of its federally funded,

licensed, or permitted undertakings on historic properties, which are listed in or eligible for the NRHP,

and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), consulting parties, and the public

an opportunity to comment on potential effects to historic properties.

Historic properties that meet NRHP criteria are buildings, structures, sites, objects, or districts that are

significant to American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture, and:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns

of our history; or

B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or

that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a

significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Additionally, significant resources must retain integrity of location, design, setting, materials,

workmanship, feeling, and association to be eligible for listing in the NRHP.


Physical Setting

The GLERL LMFS property is located west of Muskegon’s urban areas along the east bank of Lake

Michigan, and north of Beach Street Road and Pere Marquette Park. It is adjacent to and was once part




of the U.S. Coast Guard Station Muskegon. The GLERL LMFS property is approximately 1.3 acres,

contains three primary buildings, paved roadways, open areas with sand and grass, and a paved parking

lot. The north end of the property adjoins a concrete pier with public access extending east to the

Muskegon Lighthouse. The property is surrounded by a chain link fence with gates along the eastern and

southern property boundaries of the property. The western boundary on the lakeside is lined with riprap.

Historical Setting and Resources

The Muskegon area was inhabited by various bands of the Ottawa and Pottawatomi tribes before the

arrival of Europeans through the mid-19th century. The name "Muskegon" is derived from the Ottawa

term “Masquigon” meaning “marshy river” or “swamp.” Early French explorers passed through the area

in the late 17th century, and French Canadian fur traders and trappers established trading posts around

Muskegon Lake between 1810 and 1820. Muskegon Township was organized in 1837, and more settlers

arrived as the first sawmill was established. Muskegon Lake was surrounded by thick, hardwood forests.

The local economy shifted to lumber production, particularly during the Civil War. By 1860, there were

13 sawmills in Muskegon. At its peak in the 1880s, there were 47 sawmills around Muskegon Lake, and

Muskegon became known as “Lumber Queen of the World.” Muskegon developed into a valuable port

and prosperous community (Yakes, 2013).

By the mid-19th century, the port and harbor leading to Muskegon Lake needed improvement. In 1851,

the first lighthouse was established. Light stations and other navigation aids were operated by the U.S.

Lighthouse Establishment (precursor to the USCG) from 1789 to 1852, then by the U.S. Lighthouse

Board until 1910. In 1863, the Muskegon Harbor Company straightened the 190-foot-wide, 15-foot-

deep channel to Muskegon Lake and installed concrete slab piers on the north and south sides of the

port, which was then known as Port Sherman. In the late 19th century, other improvements were made

to the port and harbor, including widening the port entrance, extension of the piers, and construction of a

new lighthouse in 1870, supplemented by a beacon light and an elevated catwalk. In 1903, the new 48-

foot-tall, cast iron Muskegon South Pierhead Lighthouse was constructed along with an elevated catwalk

to access the beacon light and fog signal on the south pier (Hyde, 1982; Shook, 2018).

In 1879, the new U.S. Life-Saving Service (precursor to the USCG) established the Muskegon Life-

Saving Station on the north side of the channel to operate lifeboats via a marine railway launch. It was

part of an expansion of the U.S. government’s lifesaving program originally established by the Treasury

Department in 1848 on the East Coast. As maritime traffic on the Great Lakes increased in the late 19th

century, new stations were created along the Lake Michigan shore. The Muskegon Life-Saving Station

was a lifeboat station, a common type in the Great Lakes (Shook, 2018; USCG, 2014).

In 1903, it was determined that erosion threatened the station, and plans were made to tear down the

existing station and build a larger station on a new site on the south side of the channel. The land was

acquired in July 1904 from the Pere Marquette Railroad (Michigan Lighthouse Conservancy, 2007).

Plans were in place to move the station to the new location in the spring of 1905. On December 28,

1904, a severe snow storm caused major damages to the existing station on the north pier and several

other port structures (Detroit Free Press, 1904). The new station was built at the south pier site (current

location of GLERL LMFS) in 1905 (Figure 4.6-1).

Following standard plans designed by the U.S. Life-Saving Service Office of Construction’s architect

Albert Burnley Bibb circa 1889, the station was designed in the Shingle Style. Bibb designed four




different station plans that were used widely across the service, as well as two custom stations, and

several plans for additions to older stations. The Muskegon Life-Saving Station was based on Bibb’s

Marquette-type station plan, named for the life-saving station at Marquette, Michigan, which featured a

separate station house and boathouse. Typically, the station house was one-and-a-half stories, with a

symmetrical facade clad in drop siding, gabled dormers, and side gables clad in wood shingles. Thirteen

Marquette-type stations were built across the United States, with a concentration in the Great Lakes and

the West Coast. Variations of the standard plan were often employed by local contractors to adapt to

local materials and conditions, and lookout towers were frequent additions to the standard design

(Historic Preservation Northwest, no date).

The Muskegon station included a Shingle Style station house (Building #1), a boathouse, and a docking

area (Figure 4.6-2). The station house contained offices and living quarters for the keeper and the crew,

and had a prominent lookout tower. Led by the station keeper, the crew of about six men drilled

frequently and operated heavy lifeboats and other means of rescue. John A. Nelson was appointed

station keeper in1902 and served until 1915 (Michigan Lighthouse Conservancy, 2007).

The U.S. Life-Saving Service eventually merged with the U.S. Revenue Cutter System to create the

USCG in 1915, when the Muskegon Life-Saving Station came under USCG control. The U.S.

Lighthouse Service, which still operated the Muskegon South Pierhead Lighthouse and presumably

owned the adjacent property containing the lighthouse keeper’s quarters (current location of USCG

Station Muskegon), would not merge with the USCG until 1939. In the interim, the harbor was further

improved with construction of a new arrowhead breakwater in the 1920s. As a result, the south pier was

shortened, the outer beacon light and fog horn structure were dismantled, and the new South Breakwater

Light was constructed in 1931(Shook, 2018).

The USCG constructed additional utilitarian buildings to the property by 1969. An aerial photograph of

the property dated 1969 shows two buildings located south of Building #1. The building directly south

of Building #1 (Building #2) is a rectangular utilitarian building with a flat roof on the eastern edge of

the current property. The third building is a small, square, utilitarian shed or garage; also on the eastern

edge of the current property (the building does not match the location or footprint of the current

Building #3). Also depicted in the 1969 aerial photograph, the 1905 boathouse and launch were already

removed, and the dockage was enlarged (historicaerials.com). By 1972, an expanded Building #2 and

Building #3 appeared on the USGS topographical map (USGS, 1972). Based on USGS records, it

appears that Building #2 was expanded by 1972, and Building #3 was built circa 1970 or at some point

between 1969 and 1972 (USGS, 1972). A facility condition assessment prepared in 2017 by Cardno

Government Services Division estimated Building #3 to be built in 1965; however, that estimate appears

to be in error. Building #3, in its current configuration, appears in a 1997 aerial image from USGS

retrieved from Google Earth (USGS, 1997).

The USCG removed the lighthouse keeper’s quarters circa 1970, and eventually constructed the new

USCG Station Muskegon Headquarters Building. The USCG vacated Building #1 and transferred the

property to NOAA in 1990. The station’s responsibilities shifted to serve both as a seasonal Search and

Rescue Detachment (SARDET) and an additional Aids to Navigation (ANT) unit in the early 2000s. The

station maintains aids to navigation from Frankfort, Michigan, to Michigan City, Indiana, covering

roughly 200 miles of Lake Michigan's eastern shoreline. Within that area, the station is responsible for

all Search and Rescue and federal maritime law enforcement from Stony Lake to Mona Lake, Michigan.

The USCG added a new boathouse circa 2005 and shed circa 2014.




NOAA took over the property, including Buildings #1, #2 and #3, and attached garage structures for the

GLERL LMFS in 1990. The LMFS’s proximity to Lake Michigan provides support for long-term

observations, field work, and experiments that are essential for understanding ecological issues in the

Great Lakes and coastal areas. NOAA completed extensive renovations of Building #1 in 2005 and

Building #2 in 2013.




Figure 4.6-1 Muskegon Life-Saving Station, circa 1950 (Source: Michigan Lighthouse Conservancy).

Figure 4.6-2 Muskegon Life-Saving Station, circa 1905 (Source: Michigan Lighthouse Conservancy).




Historic Properties

A cultural resources survey was conducted to locate and record cultural resources in the Area of

Potential Effects (APE) (Figure 4.6 -3), which includes the project area and its immediate vicinity, and

to evaluate resources under the NRHP criteria. Background research included a review of existing

documentation pertaining to the project area, and primary and secondary sources generally found online.

Archival research included a search of the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office’s database of

archaeological and built environment resources for previously recorded resources within a ¼-mile study

area around the project site. The nearby Muskegon South Pierhead Lighthouse and the South

Breakwater Light are listed in the NRHP, but are outside of the APE. Only one resource, Building #1,

was identified in the APE, and it was previously determined eligible for the NRHP in 2000. No

resources in the study area are listed in the local register or are located within a City of Muskegon

Historic District.

Native American consultation was initiated on January 3, 2018. The Tribes with a potential interest in

actions at the project location were contacted with a letter soliciting them to identify any potentially

affected traditional properties. The list of Tribes consulted and a template of the letter sent to these tribes

is provided in Appendix A.

The survey identified five buildings within the study area for potential significance (Table 4.6-1):

Table 4.6-1 Resources Surveyed in Study Area

Name Date NRHP Status

Building #1 1905 Eligible

Building #2 c. 1965 (2013) Not Eligible

Building #3 c. 1970 Not Eligible

USCG Station Muskegon Headquarters Building 1990 Not Eligible

USCG Station Muskegon Boathouse c. 2005 Not Eligible

Two buildings were identified that were more than 50 years old (Figure 4.6-4). Building #1, built in

1905, was previously determined eligible for the NRHP in 2000. Building #2, originally built circa

1965, was substantially altered in 2013 in appearance and massing, and did not exhibit historic

characteristics; therefore, it did not warrant further evaluation under NRHP criteria and is not eligible for

the NRHP. The remaining buildings are less than 50 years old, did not exhibit exceptional historical or

architectural significance, and are not eligible for the NRHP.

GLERL LMFSBuilding 2


USCG MuskegonStation Headquarters


USCG MuskegonStation Boat House

Figure 4.6-3Area of Potential Effects

Source: ESRI Imagery, NOAA

Scale: 1 = 1,200; 1 inch = 100 feet

0 100 20050 Feet

I

Area of Potential Effects (APE)Buildings within APE

LEGEND


PereMarquette

Park

Beach Street Rd

LAKEMICHIGAN

NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-20





Figure 4.6-4 Building #1 (left), Building #2 (center), and Building #3 (right).

Building #1

Building #1 is a one-and-a-half-story Shingle Style frame building that originally served as the station

house for the Muskegon Life-Saving Station. Its form is based on plans for Marquette-type life-saving

stations. The building was rehabilitated in 2005 with a new roof, siding, windows, doors, and many

interior features. The building has a rectangular plan and sits on a poured concrete slab foundation with

basement walls. The side-gabled roof has a steep pitch with gabled and shed dormers, is covered with

composite shingles, and has an off-center brick chimney at the ridge, and aluminum gutters and

downspouts at the rakes. The exterior walls are covered with shingle siding, and contain hollow steel

exterior doors and three-over-one vinyl frame replacement windows. Decorative features include

diamond-shaped windows, band courses, and incandescent light fixtures. The south side of the building

(front elevation) facing a small lawn has a central cross-gable with paired sash windows and shed

dormers on each side, a full-width covered porch with a low-pitch hipped roof supported by square posts

(Figure 4.6-5). The north side of the building (rear elevation) facing the channel has a prominent, central

four-story square-plan lookout tower with a pyramidal roof, and shed dormers on each side of the tower

(Figure 4.6-6). Central steps are flanked by open porches. The east and west sides contain two sash

windows in each story and a diamond shaped window in each gable. The west side of the building has

an access ramp. The building currently functions as the office, meeting, and laboratory space for

GLERL. The setting of the property is visually dominated by the south pier, channel, navigation aids,

and breakwater structures extending into Lake Michigan, including two lighthouses.




Figure 4.6-5 Building #1, South Side.

Figure 4.6-6 Building #1, North (left) and West (right) Sides.




Built in 1905, Building #1 is associated with the mission of the U.S. Life-Saving Service related to

maritime rescue in the Great Lakes, and with the development of the port at Lake Michigan and

Muskegon Lake, known historically as Port Sherman. The port has played a pivotal role in the

development of Muskegon and the harbor has functioned as a center for industry, shipping, commercial

and recreational fishing, and tourism since the 1870s. The U.S. Life-Saving Service maintained the

station until it was subsumed under the USCG in 1915. The USCG continued to serve a critical role in

the development, operation, and safety of Lake Michigan and the Muskegon harbor from Building #1

until 1990. For 85 years, the station provided life-safety, salvage, and navigational help to mariners.

Building #1 meets NRHP Criterion A for its associations with the important contributions of the U.S.

Life-Saving Service and the USCG in the development of the local port and community.

Research did not indicate any associations between Building #1 and the lives of persons important to

history. Several keepers, including John A. Nelson, contributed to the operation of the station, but their

contributions align with general assigned duties. It does not meet NRHP Criterion B. Building #1 is a

good example of a typical life-saving station in the Great Lakes following a standard design produced by

the U.S. Life-Saving Service Office of Construction, with unique modification for its site in Muskegon,

including its four-story lookout tower. It is a late example of the Marquette type, which was designed

circa 1889; and an example of its period, exhibiting Shingle Style characteristics (restored). Most life-

saving stations across the United States were constructed from standard design drawings adapted by

local contractors. Architect Arthur Burnley Bibb contributed several designs to the U.S. Life-Saving

Service, including the Marquette-type station, but his career was not distinguished to the level of a

master architect. Building #1 meets NRHP Criterion C as it embodies the distinctive characteristics of an

early 20th century life-saving station.

The history of Building #1 is documented, and the building is unlikely to yield further information

important in history. It does not meet NRHP Criterion D.

Building #1 has some diminished aspects integrity:

Location - Building #1 has not been moved since its construction in 1905. Building #1 retains integrity

of location.

Design - Building #1 has been altered over the years, including a major renovation in 2005 that replaced

the roof, siding, windows, doors, and many interior features. However, the renovation rehabilitated the

building to reflect its original form, exterior appearance, and style. Building #1 retains integrity of style.

Setting - The general physical environment of Building #1 has undergone change since its initial

development. The life-saving station was altered with the removal and alteration of the adjacent 1905

boathouse and dock by the 1970s. Improvements to the breakwater were made in the 1920s and 1930s,

including changes to the south pier and breakwater structures. The USCG altered its adjacent property

with two new buildings. Building #2’s appearance was significantly altered in 2013. However, the major

elements of Building #1’s setting as a shorefront facility are Lake Michigan, the channel to Muskegon

Lake, the dockage, and the south pier, which dominate its setting. Building #1 retains integrity of

setting.




Materials - As stated above, the 2005 renovation replaced many of Building #1’s finishes and features,

including the roof, siding, windows, doors, and many interior. By 2005, vinyl siding and windows had

replaced the original shingle siding and wood sash windows. The 2005 rehabilitation replaced vinyl

siding with shingles, and replaced windows with modern sash in a three-over-one pattern. The

replacement materials reflect the original materials and follow the building’s original pattern of

configuration of materials. Building #1’s integrity of materials is diminished, but intact.

Workmanship - Despite the removal and replacement of some of its original elements, Building #1

continues to convey evidence of early 20th century construction crafts; it retains integrity of

workmanship.

Feeling - Due to the 2005 renovation, Building #1 expresses both the aesthetic and historic sense of the

early 20th century life-saving station house. It retains integrity of feeling.

Association - Since 1990, Building #1 stopped functioning as a life-saving station. However, it remains

adjacent to USCG Station Muskegon, and NOAA’s maritime research requires use of the station for

observation of Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake. Due to the proximity and collaboration of NOAA

and the USCG, Building #1 retains integrity of association.

In summary, Building #1 is eligible for listing in the NRHP at the local level of significance for its

contributions as the Muskegon Life-Saving Station in the areas of military, humanitarianism, and

transportation. The property is eligible under Criterion A for its associations related to life-saving

services and port development during 85 years of service, and under Criterion C as it embodies the

distinctive characteristics of its type. The period of significance is 1905 to 1990; from the year it was

constructed to the end of the USCG use of the station house. In 2000, Building #1 was determined

eligible for the NRHP, and it currently retains sufficient integrity for listing in the NRHP.


The analysis of impacts, or potential effects, on historic properties is based on the Criteria of Adverse

Effect described in regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800.5). An undertaking

has an effect on a historic property when the undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, the

characteristics of the property that may qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP [36 CFR

800.5(a)]. An effect is considered adverse when it diminishes the integrity of the property’s location,

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur

later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative. Adverse effects on historic properties

include: physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; alteration of a property that is

not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68) and

applicable guidelines; removal of the property from its historic location; change of the character of the

property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic

significance; introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the

property’s significant historic features; neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, with certain

exceptions; and transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate

and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property’s

historic significance.





Under this option, a two-story wood-frame building with design considerations for a historical look

would be constructed on the existing foundation to replace Building #3. Although Building #3 is not a

historic property, the proximity of Building #3 to Building #1 within the GLERL LMFS complex has

the potential to affect Building #1’s integrity of setting and feeling. The enlarged replacement of

Building #3 would be visible from Building #1, but separated by Building #2, which is located between

the two buildings and forms a partial visual barrier.

To retain the integrity of Building #1, the improvements will be consistent with the Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, particularly the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

Of the 10 Standards for Rehabilitation, three standards pertain to new construction as proposed in this

alternative.

Standard 3: Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes

that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural

elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

The new design for Building #3 must avoid the inclusion of conjectural historical or architectural

features.

Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic

materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be

compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the

property and its environment.

The new design for Building #3 must balance differentiation and compatibility in massing, size, scale,

and architectural features related to Building #1.

Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a

manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its

environment would be unimpaired.

Replacement of the existing one-story Building #3 would be independent from Building #1, and its

removal would not impair the historic property.

In summary, the design would adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

Based on the analysis of potential effects to historic properties from implementation of the proposed

action, no significant impacts would result under Action Alternative 1. A FONSI is warranted for the

proposed action evaluated in this EA.





Under this option, a prefabricated two-story metal building would replace the existing Building #3 on

the existing foundation. Although Building #3 is not a historic property, the proximity of Building #3 to

Building #1 within the GLERL LMFS complex has the potential to affect Building #1’s integrity of

setting and feeling. The enlarged replacement of Building #3 would be visible from Building #1, but

separated by Building #2, which is located between the two buildings and forms a partial visual barrier.

As described under Action Alternative 1, the design for Building #3 must be consistent with the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic

Buildings, specifically Standards 3, 9, and 10. Under Standard 3, the replacement of the existing one-

story Building #3 with a similar two-story prefabricated metal building would not add any conjectural

historical features that could impact the historic property. Under Standard 9, Building #3 as proposed in

this alternative would not be architecturally compatible with Building #1, but would resemble its current

appearance. Because the architectural aesthetic would essentially remain the same, and the visual

intrusion of the additional massing would be minimized by the visual barrier of Building #2 between

Building #1 and Building #3, the proposed building is unlikely to impact the historic property. Under

Standard 10, the replacement of the existing one-story Building #3 with an enlarged wood-frame

building would be independent from Building #1, and its removal would not impair the historic

property.



action, no significant impacts would result under Action Alternative 2.


Under this option, a new one-story wood-frame building (minimum of 4,500 square feet) would be

constructed to replace the existing Building #3 on the existing foundation. Although Building #3 is not a

historic property, the proximity of Building #3 to Building #1 within the GLERL LMFS complex has

the potential to affect Building #1’s integrity of setting and feeling. The enlarged replacement of

Building #3 would be visible from Building #1, but separated by Building #2, which is located between

the two buildings and forms a partial visual barrier.

As described under Action Alternative 1, the design for Building #3 must be consistent with the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic

Buildings, specifically Standards 3, 9, and 10. Under Standard 3, the new design for Building #3 must

avoid the inclusion of conjectural historical or architectural features. Under Standard 9, the new

Building #3 as proposed in this alternative would not be architecturally compatible with Building #1, but

would resemble its current appearance. Because the architectural aesthetic would essentially remain the

same, and the visual intrusion of the additional massing would be minimized by the visual barrier of

Building #2 between Building #1 and Building #3, the proposed building is unlikely to impact Building

1’s integrity. Under Standard 10, the replacement of the existing one-story Building #3 with an enlarged

wood-frame building would be independent from Building #1, and its removal would not impair the

historic property.






action, no significant impacts would result under Action Alternative 3.


Under a No-Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the existing buildings or setting within the

APE as a result of this project. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would have no adverse effects on

Building #1. Based on the analysis of potential effects to historic properties due to the proposed action,

no significant impacts would result from the implementation of the No-Action Alternative.


No mitigation measures are required for each of the three Action Alternatives or for the No-Action Alternative in

relation to cultural resources.




4.7 FLORA AND FAUNA


The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

the Commerce Department, National Marine Fisheries Service, and directs all Federal agencies on the

conservation of endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. Section 7 of the ESA

requires Federal agencies to carry out conservation programs to benefit endangered and threatened

species. If listed species or designated critical habitat are present and could be affected by the proposed

action, a biological assessment must be prepared to analyze the potential effects of the proposed action

and make a determination of effect.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) manages the Michigan’s Official List of

Endangered and Threatened Species (effective April 9, 2009), the Michigan’s Special Animals, and the

Michigan Special Plants lists. These lists include endangered, threatened, and probably extirpated plant

and animal species in Michigan that are protected under the ESA of the State of Michigan (Part 365 of

PA 451, 1994 Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act). Also, included in these

lists are species of Special Concern. Special Concern species do not have legal protection under the

ESA; however, many of these species are of concern because of their declining or relict population in

the State of Michigan.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects all migratory birds listed in the 50 CFR 10.13, their

occupied nests, and eggs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the agency with statutory

authority and responsibility for enforcing the MBTA. According to the USFWS, the MBTA provides

that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, barter, import, export, or

transport any migratory bird, nest, or egg, unless authorized under a permit.


On November 29, 2017, the site was inspected by a biologist for presence of TES habitats. Photographs

from the site inspection of affected areas are provided in Appendix B. The project area consists of the

footprint of the existing Building #3 and surrounding asphalt areas immediately north (adjacent to

Building #2) and east. Adjacent to the project area are built environments associated with the LMFS

and channel liking Lake Michigan to Muskegon Lake to the north, the USCG Station Muskegon to the

east and roads, City park or remnant dune areas and beaches lie to the south. Lake shore and dune sand

stabilized by rip rap are located adjacent to the project area to the west.

A list of state and federally threatened and endangered species (TES) that have been observed within the

project area and nearby areas (4 mile radius) was obtained from the Michigan Natural Features

Inventory. The Michigan Natural Features Inventory’s list is provided in Appendix C. In addition, the

Michigan County Distribution of Federally-Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate

Species website was reviewed and additional species were added as necessary.





Available site-specific literature and data were reviewed to characterize habitat features and land use

patterns for each action alternative and the no-action alternative. For state-listed TES to be considered

potentially present, the site must be within the specie’s range, and a suitable habitat for the species must

be present in the project area. Three state TES, the lake sturgeon, piping plover, and Pitcher’s thistle,

are listed for the area. Special concern species listed by the MDNR includes the dune cutworm and pink

healsplitter. For federally-listed TES to be considered potentially present, the species should be

observed in Muskegon County and suitable habitat for the species must be present in the project area.

Seven federal TES, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, rufa red knot, Karner blue butterfly, eastern

massasauga rattlesnake, piping plover (a shore bird), and Pitcher’s thistle (a sand dune plant) are listed

for the area. Based on an evaluation of site-specific literature and a field inspection, the state- and

federally-listed TES species that have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the project area are

evaluated below. Details regarding the state- and federally-listed TES status, last observation date,

habitat, and whether the habitat exists in the project area are also discussed.

Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)

The lake sturgeon is listed as a threatened by the MDNR. This species was last observed in this area of

Lake Michigan in 2008. The lake sturgeon is generally a benthic species that occurs in the shallow areas

of large fresh water rivers and lakes. They are associated with un-vegetated habitats with deep runs and

pools in rivers. The lake sturgeon typically spawns in gravel bottom streams while rocky lake shores are

used when riverine habitats are unavailable (MNFI, 2017). Areas potentially affected by the proposed

action do not include the nearby channel or lake habitat. Suitable habitat for the lake sturgeon is not

available in the project area.

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

The piping plover is listed as endangered by the MDNR and the USFWS. This species was last

observed in this area in 2015. The piping plover’s habitat resides on beaches along the Great Lakes.

Piping plovers breed on sparsely vegetated beaches, cobble pans, or sand pits in the sand dunes

(USFWS, 2017a). The nearest designated critical habitat for piping plover is located at the Muskegon

State Park, which is located on the opposite shore of the entry channel between Lake Michigan and

Muskegon Lake (USFWS, 2017b). A critical habitat is a specific geographic area that contain features

essential to the conservation of a TES and that may require special management and protection. A

critical habitat for the piping plover is not present in the project area. Furthermore, a suitable habitat for

this piping plover is not available in the project area.

Pitcher’s Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri)

Pitcher’s thistle is listed as threatened by the MDNR and the USFWS. This species was last observed in

this area in 2012. Pitcher’s thistle is found on the dunes and shorelines of the Great Lakes (MNFI,

2017). During the site inspection, the shoreline was inspected for Pitcher’s thistle and none was

observed. A suitable habitat for the Pitcher’s thistle is not available in the project area.

Dune Cutworm (Euxoa aurulenta)

The dune cutworm is listed as a special concern species by the MDNR. Special-concern species are not

protected by Michigan’s ESA, but are of concern because of their population decline within the State of

Michigan. This species was last observed in this area in 1989. The dune cutworm has been reported




occurring in disjunct populations in sandy areas. The habitat typically consists of sparsely vegetated,

high quality coastal dune habitats (MNFI, 2017). During the site inspection, no dune cutworms were

observed. A suitable habitat, as described above, for the dune cutworm is not available in the project

area.

Pink Heelsplitter (Potamilus alatus)

The pink heelsplitter (a freshwater mussel) is listed as a special concern species by the MDNR. The

pink heelsplitter can be found in various types of substrate, and in slower moving waters. The habitat

consists of freshwater rivers and streams. No work will be conducted in the channel or lake near the

project area. A suitable aquatic habitat for this the pink heelsplitter is not available in the project area.

Lake Cress (Rorippa aquatica)

The lake cress is listed as threatened by the USFWS. This species was last observed in this area in 1898.

The lake cress is an aquatic plant found in lake margins and slowly moving streams (MNFI, 2017). No

work will be conducted in the channel or lake near the project area. A suitable aquatic habitat for this

lake cress is not available in the project area.

Bladderwort (Utricularia subulata)

The bladderwort is listed as threatened by the USFWS. This species was last observed in the area in

1992. The bladderwort’s habitat consists of damp sand in the marginal area of interdunal wetlands

(MNFI, 2017). There are no wetlands in the project area. A suitable habitat for this bladderwort is not


Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist)

The Indiana bat is listed as endangered by the USFWS. The Indiana bat’s habitat in Michigan consists

of roosts in the bark or in hollows and cavities of sun-exposed trees (USFWS, 2017b). Building #3 was

examined for bats roosting and none were documented. In addition, there are no trees suitable for

roosting within the project area. A suitable habitat for the Indiana bat is not available in the project area.

Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)

The northern long-eared bat is listed as threatened by the USFWS. The northern long-eared bat

hibernates in caves and mines and occupies wooded areas in the Fall. In the Spring and Summer, the

bats roost and forage in upland forests (USFWS, 2017b). There are no upland forests or wooded areas

within the project area. A suitable habitat for the Indiana bat is not available in the project area.

Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

The rufa red knot (a shore bird) is listed as threatened by the USFWS. Red knots are an uncommon

migrant in Michigan and are never abundant (USFWS, 2017b). The rufa red knots migrate along the

shores and nest in the artic. A suitable habitat for the rufa red knot is not available in the project area.

Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus)

The eastern massasauga rattlesnake is listed as endangered by the USFWS. The eastern massasauga

habitat consists of open to forested wetlands and adjacent upland areas (USFWS, 2017b). There are no

wetlands and adjacent uplands within the project area. A suitable habitat for this the eastern massasauga

is not available in the project area.

Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides Melissa sameulis)




The Karner blue butterfly is listed as endangered by the USFWS. The Karner blue butterfly’s habitat

consists of pine barrens and oak savannas on sandy soils with wild lupines (USFWS, 2017b). There are

no pines or oak savannas in the project area. A suitable habitat for the Karner blue butterfly is not


Anticipated impacts for each alternative relative to the resources analyzed above are presented below for

each Action Alternative and the No-Action Alternative.


Based on the analysis of potentially affected species listed as endangered, threatened or species of

concern, no adverse effect to these species is anticipated to occur due to the proposed action

implemented under Action Alternative 1. In addition, no ‘take’ of migratory birds would result from

implementation of this Action Alternative.

No adverse effects to flora and fauna resources would result under Action Alternative 1.



concern, no adverse effect to these species is anticipated to occur due to the proposed action

implemented under Action Alternative 2. In addition, no ‘take’ of migratory birds would result from

implementation of this Action Alternative.




concern, no adverse effect these species is anticipated to occur due to the proposed action implemented

under Action Alternative 3. In addition, no ‘take’ of migratory birds would result from implementation

of this Action Alternative.




concern, no adverse effect to these species is anticipated under the No-Action Alternative. In addition,

no ‘take’ of migratory birds would result from implementation of this Action Alternative.

No adverse effects to flora and fauna resources would result under the No-Action Alternative.





No mitigation measures are required or recommended relative to effect upon flora and fauna resources.




4.8 WETLANDS


The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates wetlands and navigable waters under Section

404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Action, respectively. The Ordinary High

Water Mark (OHWM) is the jurisdictional limit for actions within waterways. The OHWM is 581.5 feet

International Great Lakes Datum (IGLD) 1985 for Lake Michigan. Any work conducted below the

OHWM requires a federal CWA Permit under Section 404 and a permit pursuant to Part 325 of the

Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.

The proposed action alternatives were reviewed for presence of wetlands in accordance with the

Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and

Northeast Region (USACE, 2012).



Prior to the field visit, site-specific literature and available information was reviewed to characterize

habitat features and land use patterns within the vicinity of the site. A review of Michigan’s Wetland

Inventory Maps and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps was completed to determine the potential

for impacts to wetlands due to the proposed action. On November 29, 2017, a site visit was completed

by a biologist familiar with Michigan’s natural communities to field verify the background data

reviewed and to determine if any wetlands existed at the site.

Action Alternative 1 does not propose work below the OHWM. Wetlands were not identified on the

Michigan or NWI maps, and no wetlands were observed within the project area during the field visit.

Lake Michigan and the connecting channel between Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake are adjacent to

the site. These surface waters will not be affected by the proposed action.

The proposed action alternatives would have no adverse effect on state or federal jurisdictional wetlands

and surface water.



effects with respect to wetlands resources or waters of the U.S. would result from the proposed Action

Alternative 2.



effects with respect to wetlands resources or waters of the U.S. would result from the proposed Action

Alternative 3.





No adverse effects to wetlands resources or waters of the U.S. would result from the No-Action

Alternative.


Other than standard BMPs for erosion preventions and stormwater pollution prevention planning, no

mitigation measures are recommended or required.




4.9 FLOODPLAINS


The 100-year floodplain is an area with a flood elevation that has a one-percent chance of being equaled

or exceeded each year. Although the name implies such a flood every 100 years, in reality, a 100-year

flood could occur in any year. EO 11988, Floodplain Management, dated May 24, 1977, requires that

federal agencies locate facilities outside the 100-year or base floodplain unless there is no practicable

alternative location. If locating outside the floodplain is unavoidable, structures should be built so that

the finished floor elevation is above the 100-year flood elevation as determined by Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) and depicted on their Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), or the

structures should be flood-resistant. Floodplain management is intended to minimize the potential for

property damage and to maintain functions of the hydrologic cycle. EO 11988 and NOAA Floodplain

Guidance, Guidance on Compliance with the Implementing Procedures for EO 11988 and 11990 (2012)

are applied to determine effects to these resources.

Under the provisions of EO 11988 Section 2(a)(1), “before taking an action, each agency shall

determine whether the proposed action will occur in a floodplain--for major Federal actions significantly

affecting the quality of the human environment, the evaluation required below will be included in any

statement prepared under Section 102(2) (C) of the NEPA. This Determination shall be made according

to a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) floodplain map or a more detailed map of

an area, if available. If such maps are not available, the agency shall make a determination of the

location of the floodplain based on the best available information.” (President of the US, 1977). Per

HUD Guidance, FEMA designates floodplains and the FEMA Map Service Center provides this

information in the form of FIRMs (HUD, 2016).

Likewise, NOAA Guidance on implementing EO 11988 states that in order to determine whether a

proposed action will occur in a 100-year (or 500-yr for a critical action) floodplain, the first reference

should be the FEMA FIRM. If the maps prepared by FEMA do not adequately characterize the flood

hazard potential for the proposed action, other sources that merit investigation may be used, such as

flood hazard studies, hydrologic studies, soil surveys, and other investigations. The proposed project site

is owned by the federal government where other regional or local floodplain regulation would not apply

to federally-owned lands.


The floodplain of the LMFS is delineated by FEMA in the FIRM Panel No. 26121C0252D with the

effective date of July 6, 2015. The existing structure, Building #3, is located outside of the 100-year

floodplain in an area designated on the FIRM as Zone X, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. The nearest

100-year floodplain is located approximately 25 feet west of the existing structure. The proposed

footprint for the Proposed Action under each action alternative would be at the same location as the

existing structure, and outside of the 100-year floodplain in an area designated in the FIRM as Zone X,

Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (see Figure 4.9-1). The proposed action under Action Alternative 3 may

occur over the 100-year floodplain with the structural element or prospective cantilever design

potentially above the 100-year floodplain base flood elevation.






Proposed actions occurring under Action Alternative 1 would not be located in the 100-year floodplain.

Construction or installation of equipment in the floodplain that would be classified as “fill” in the

floodplain would not occur. This alternative would not alter the existing natural or beneficial values of

the floodplain. Therefore, no adverse effects to the floodplain would occur.

As this alternative is not located in the 100-year floodplain, no additional action is required by NOAA

for compliance with EO 11988.




floodplain would not occur. This alternative would not alter the existing natural or beneficial values of

the floodplain. Therefore, no adverse effects to the floodplain would occur.






floodplain would not occur. Structural elements may be cantilevered to the west above the 100-year

floodplain; however, this alternative would not temporarily or permanently place fill (including

equipment) within the floodplain or alter its existing natural or beneficial values. Therefore, no adverse

effects to the floodplain would occur.



ProjectLocation

AECO

M Oa

kland

CA 2/

8/20

18 US

ER el

i.pop

uch P

ATH L

:\Proj

ects\

GIS\P

rojec

ts\NO

AA_G

reatLa

kes_

ERL\

02_M

aps\

01_A

nalys

is_an

d_Da

ta_De

velop

ment\

DFirm

_Prel

im.m

xd

2018

4-37

Project LocationFEMA National Hazard Flood LayerFEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel ID No. 26121C0252D

Zone AE, 1% annual chance floodplain (Flood elevation: 584.4 ft, NAVD88)Zone X500, 0.20% annual chance floodplainZone X, area of minimal flooding (outside of 1% and 0.20% annual chance floodplain)

0 200Feet

NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

Source: FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer Panel 26121C0252D, 07/06/15; ESRI Imagery, 2016.

1:1,2001 inch = 100 feet


Figure 4.9-1FEMA Flood Hazards








No mitigation measures are required or recommends with regarding impacts to floodplain resources.




4.10 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT


The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was passed by Congress in 1972, as amended, authorizes

certain coastal states to actively manage and protect coastal and shoreline resources from residential,

recreational, commercial and industrial uses. States have the primary role of managing coastal areas via

an approved Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP), which describes how the state will manage

its coastal zones and resources.

Federal consistency is the CZMA provision that federal actions that have reasonably foreseeable effects

on any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone (also referred to as coastal uses or

resources, or coastal effects) should be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the

enforceable policies of a coastal state’s federally approved CZMP. Federal consistency requirements are

described in Section 307 of the CZMA and at 15 CFR Section 930. A Federal Consistency

Determination under each state’s approved CZMP is typically required for federal actions.

MDEQ is responsible for implementing the CZMP and coordinating consistency review in the State.

However, the CZMP and consistency coordination is managed out of MDNR by Ronda Wuycheck. The

CZMP, which was approved in 1978, relies on specific State policies and objectives that promote the

protection of freshwater coastline resources contained within the coastal area. The components of the

program include: natural hazard to development; sensitive to alteration or disturbance; fulfilling

recreational or cultural needs; natural economic potential (e.g. water transportation, mineral and energy,

prime industrial and agricultural areas); and intensive or conflicting use, which encompass coastal lakes,

river moths, bays and urban areas (MDEQ, 1978). State shoreline statutes include: Shorelands

Protection and Management Act; Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act; and Sand Dunes Act.

A focus of the Michigan CZMP is to improve administration of existing State shoreline statutes,

including the Shorelands Act, Submerged Lands Act and Sand Dune Act. Critical dune areas (CDA) are

protected by Part 353 of the Sand Dune Protection and Management Act. CDA represent the tallest and

largest dunes extending along much of Lake Michigan's shoreline and the shores of Lake Superior,

totaling about 74,000 acres in size. The State legislature has found that CDA of the state are unique,

irreplaceable, and fragile resources that provide significant recreational, economic, scientific, geological,

scenic, botanical, educational, agricultural, and ecological benefits (State of Michigan, 2017).

CDA includes public and private properties where developmental, silvicultural and recreational

activities are regulated by Part 353, Sand Dune Protection and Management Act. A permit is required

for any activity that would significantly alter the physical characteristics of a CDA or for a contour

change in a CDA, such activities including the construction of a house or a garage, building a roadway

or driveway, installing a septic system, installing retaining walls, and sand removal activities. Project

review is conducted by the State and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to ensure that

unreasonable depletion or degradation of the diversity, quality or function of CDA does not occur. Local

units of government have the right to submit a model zoning ordinance to the MDEQ for review and

approval (MDEQ, 2017b).





The project site is located approximately 30 feet from the edge of Lake Michigan and 0.7 miles from

Muskegon Lake, which flows out to Lake Michigan via a manmade channel. According to MDEQ, the

site is located in both the coastal zone and a CDA (MDEQ, 2003). However, the affected area is in a

built area and the proposed action would take place at a site that is already developed with the existing

Building #3. The project site no longer meets the definition of CDA; however immediately south of

Building #3, is an undeveloped property with remnant dune characteristics.

The LMFS and adjacent shoreline properties are not within established High Risk Erosion Areas

established for state of Michigan shoreline environments and depicted on maps prepared for Norton

Shores Township (MDNR, 2017).


The CZMP, established in 1978, includes a number of state legislated areas that are of particular concern

in the coastal zone. Impacts to these areas could result in environmental impacts to coastal zone

resources. These areas are described below.

Public Access Sites

The State has three designated public access fishing sites and 121 coastal recreational harbors and

launching sites. The access through the project area to the Muskegon South Pierhead Lighthouse is not

identified in the CZMP, but is subject to consistency review as a coastal access. Access to the

Muskegon South Pierhead Lighthouse is provided via an asphalt pathway through the LMFS parking

area which connects Beach Street to the pier. The pierhead is used for fishing year-around. Access to the

pierhead will remain open during the 197 days of construction. According to a DNR map, this location

is assessed as “potential public access” (DNR, 2016).

State Game and Wildlife Area

The Michigan CZMP states that there are 19 coastal state game and wildlife areas in the State of

Michigan. State Game Areas are areas established primarily for hunting. State Wildlife Areas are areas

established for both hunting and conservation or protection of wildlife (DNR, 2018). No coastal State

Game or Wildlife Areas are within or nearby the project area.

State Parks

The Michigan CZMP states there are 37 state parks located along the coast. Muskegon State Park is

approximately 1 mile from the project site, located on the opposite shore of the entry channel between

Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake. No direct or indirect effects to this resource would occur as a result

of implementing any of the action alternatives.

Harbors of Refuge and Mooring Facilities

Harbors of Refuge and Mooring Facilities are established to provide for specialized recreational boating

needs under respective provisions of Act No. 320 of the Public Acts of 1947 and Act No. 337 of the

Public Acts of 1939. There are recreational and commercial harbors beginning less than a one-half mile

east of the GLERL LMFS. These facilities would not be directly or indirectly affected as a result of

implementing any action alternatives.




Port Districts

Port Districts were established to provide for commercial navigation needs under respective provisions

of the Port Districts Act. Two port districts established for commercial navigation needs under the Port

Districts Act are the Detroit Port District and the Monroe Port District. The project site is not located in

a Port District established under the Michigan CZMP.

Historic Districts

The Michigan CZMP states there are 6 historic districts located along the coast. Historic Districts within

the Michigan coastal zone are established under the provisions of the State Historic Districts Act (Act

number 169 of the Public Acts of 1969). The Michigan CZMP established in 1978 states there are six

historic districts along the Michigan coast. None of the buildings in the project area are within the limits

of a state or City of Muskegon Historic District or are individually listed in local registers.

Farmland or Open Space Areas

These areas are voluntarily enrolled by landowners, which legally restricts nonagricultural development

under provisions of the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act. As previously stated above, there

are no farmlands located in or around the project area. However, the project area is located in an OSR

district, but is not enrolled as an open space area.

State Wilderness Areas, Wild Areas and Natural Areas

Natural Areas are regulated under the State Wilderness and Natural Areas Act (Act Number 241 of the

Public Acts of 1972). Three natural areas border the Michigan coast. The project area for the Proposed

Action does not possess the features or characteristics typical of state-identified special natural areas,

including a Wilderness Area, Wild Area, Research Natural Area, Nature Study Area or Managed

Natural Area.

Natural Rivers Areas

These areas are preserved under the provisions of the State Natural Rivers Act (Act Number 231 of the

Public Acts of 1970). According to the CZMP, there are four natural rivers established in the State’s

coastal areas. No natural rivers are present in or near the project area. The project area and LMFS is

adjacent to a man-made channel between Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake.

Great Lakes designated Sand Dune Areas

Protection, management and reclamation of Great Lakes sand dunes is provided under the Act Number

222 of the Public Acts of 1976. The project site is within a critical sand dunes area, but is neither

ecologically sensitive nor natural dunes. The project footprint would not change from the existing

Building #3 foundation, and therefore is not considered an area of new development as defined in Part

353, Sand Dune Protection and Management Act.


The preferred alternative is not expected to have significant adverse impacts to coastal zone resources,

since a replacement building would be constructed on the footprint of existing Building #3 foundation.

The existing perimeter foundation would be retained while the interior slab foundation and unsuitable

soil underneath Building #3 would be removed and replaced down to approximately 6 feet or a total of




about 556 cubic yards. While the predominantly sandy soil beneath the slab foundation would be

removed and available for placement in undeveloped, upland portions of the CDA near the project site,

the action would not adversely alter the physical characteristics of undeveloped portions of the CDA or

make any extractive contour changes to undeveloped portions of the CDA. Additionally, no dune

vegetation would be removed or disturbed during the construction and operation of the proposed action.

However, because the project would involve the removal and construction of a new structure, a Part 353

permit would be required by MDEQ. As discussed in the Section 4.2, Geological Resources, A

MDEQ/USACE Joint Permit Application would be used to describe and quantify proposed activities

regulated by the MDEQ and/or the USACE.

A Part 353 permit would be obtained and excavation of sandy soils would occur only within the

footprint of Building #3. Excavation of these remnant dune soils would be placed in appropriate

locations within the CDA, consistent with Michigan’s CZMP.

Existing coastal access and shoreline recreation areas would not experience long-term disruption.

Roughly10 feet of driveway, between the staging area and fence located at the edge of the NOAA

station, would be maintained throughout the construction period to provide vehicular and pedestrian

access to the northern portion of the parking lot and the Muskegon South Pierhead Lighthouse and jetty

(see Figure 1.1-3).

As a direct federal action, a coastal consistency determination by NOAA with concurrence by MDEQ

would be required to document that the proposed action is consistent with enforceable policies

established in the State’s CZMP.

No significant adverse effects to coastal resources would result.


The effects of Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. There would be no adverse

effects from Alternative 2 with respect to coastal resources.


The effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. There would be no adverse

effects from Alternative 3 with respect to coastal resources.



adverse effects to coastal zone resources would result.


No mitigation measures are required for any of the three Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action

Alternative in relation to Coastal Zone Management.




4.11 FARMLANDS


The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) became law in 1981, as a result of millions of acres of

farmland being converted to non-agricultural uses in the U.S. each year (NRCS, 2016). FPPA is

intended to minimize the impact of federal programs converting farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Farmland includes: prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of Statewide or local importance. The

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines prime farmland as land that has the best combination of

physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is

available for these uses, including cultivated land, pastureland, forest land, or other land.

Under the FPPA, federal agencies must examine whether potentially adverse effects to prime or unique

farmlands or farmlands of state or local importance would occur before approving any action that would

irreversibly convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. Soil units and land surface conditions are

provided in survey data available from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for each

county. Regulations at 7 CFR 658.2(a) exclude land from definition of farmland as those lands already

in urban use or committed to urban development or water storage (NRCS, 2002).

For projects that have the potential to convert important farmland to non-farm use, USDA Service

Center uses a land evaluation and site assessment system to establish a farmland conversion impact

rating score on proposed sites. This score is used as an indicator for the project sponsor to consider

alternative sites if the potential adverse impacts on the farmland exceed the recommended allowable

level. In instances where the conversion of prime farmland is necessary, the USDA has created the

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating system.


The project site is located City of Muskegon, County of Muskegon, Michigan. Currently, the project site

houses NOAA’s GLERL, Building #3. According to soil survey data prepared by the NRCS, the site and

surrounding area are classified as Dune Land and Lakes and Beaches (NRCS, 2017).

The project site is not in a current or prospective area defined as prime farmland, and does not support

agricultural practices. There are no FPPA resources, including prime farmland, unique farmland, and

land of Statewide or local importance, present on or within areas of the proposed action area (NRCS, no

date).

The areas surrounding the project site are primarily used for recreational, marine research, marine vessel

and residential purposes.



As discussed in the Affected Resources section the project site is within an area utilized for recreational,

research and residential purposes. Prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of Statewide or local




importance are not present in areas where the proposed action would take place. Thus, there would be no

adverse effect on any FPPA resources under Action Alternative 1.


The effects of Action Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. There would be no

adverse effects from Action Alternative 2 with respect to agricultural resources.


The effects of Action Alternative 3 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. There would be no

adverse effects from Action Alternative 3 with respect to agricultural resources.



adverse effects to agricultural resources would result.



Alternative in relation to agricultural resources.




4.12 NOISE


Potential adverse noise and vibration effects are assessed with respect to applicable standards at the

federal, State, and local jurisdictional level. Relevant standards based on known existing laws,

ordinances, regulations, policies, and guidance are summarized in the following subsections.

Federal

Aside from Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations with respect to

occupational exposure to noise, there are no federal laws, regulations, ordinances, or standards that

would directly affect the proposed project with respect to noise. However, there are guidelines at the

federal level that direct the consideration of a broad range of noise issues. The US EPA has published

guidance that specifically addresses issues of community noise. This guidance, is commonly referred to

as the “levels document” (EPA, 1974), contains goals for noise levels affecting residential land uses.

These goals are set at less than 55 dBA (measured as day-night sound level [Ldn]) for exterior levels and

less than 45 dBA (measured as Ldn) for interior levels. The Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) Noise Guidebook also recommends that exterior areas of frequent human use

follow the EPA guideline of 55 Ldn. Thus, in the absence of quantified State or local noise limits,

project-attributed noise in excess of 55 dBA Ldn would serve as a reasonable indicator of adverse effect

at a noise-sensitive area (NSA).

Occupational exposure to noise is regulated by Title 29 CFR Section 1910.95, Occupational Noise

Exposure, which identifies the requirements for an employer to implement: feasible administrative or

engineering controls, personal protective equipment, and/or a hearing conservation program to protect

employees against the effects of noise exposure when it exceeds an average of 90 dBA for an 8 hour

period.

State of Michigan

Chapter 26 of the Michigan Guide to Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulations (State of Michigan,

2016) describes Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) occupational

noise levels that would apply to noise exposure for project construction workers, but there are no

apparent State-wide noise regulations with respect to construction noise as received by surrounding

NSA.

City of Muskegon

Section 26-46 of the Muskegon City Code limits allowable construction hours to the period between 7

a.m. and 6 p.m., but also provides an opportunity to have permitted construction activity outside of these

hours for a period no longer than three days—or as extended by the building inspector for emergencies.

No noise level thresholds are specified during these allowable construction hours.


Acoustical Fundamentals

Noise is generally defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. The effects of noise on people can

include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and in the




extreme, hearing impairment. Noise effects can be caused by pitch or loudness. Pitch is the number of

complete vibrations or cycles per second of a wave that result in the range of tone from high to low;

higher-pitched sounds are louder to humans than lower-pitched sounds. Loudness is the intensity or

amplitude of sound. The sound pressure level (SPL) is the descriptor most commonly used to

characterize the loudness of a sound level. Because sound pressure can vary enormously within the

range of human hearing, the logarithmic decibel scale (dB) is used to quantify sound levels.

The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the audible sound spectrum, so SPL

measurements can be weighted to better represent frequency-based sensitivity of average healthy human

hearing. One such specific “filtering” of sound is called “A weighting.” Because humans are less

sensitive to low-frequency sound than they are too high-frequency sound, A-weighted decibel (dBA)

levels deemphasize low-frequency sound energy. A logarithmic scale is used to quantify sound intensity

that approximates the range of sensitivity of the human ear that normally extends from 0 dBA to about

140 dBA. A 10 dBA increase in the level of continuous noise represents a perceived doubling of

loudness. With respect to traffic noise, increases of 3 dBA are barely perceptible to people, while a 5

dBA increase is readily noticeable.

Different descriptors for sound-level measurements are used to characterize the time-varying nature of

sound. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on

people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that noise effects are

dependent on the total acoustical energy content and the time and duration of occurrence. For example,

the Ldn value is the energy average of the A-weighted hourly equivalent sound levels occurring during a

24 hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

(nighttime).

For a stationary point source of sound, sound typically attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of

distance from the source. For a line source of sound, such as free-flowing traffic on a freeway, sound

attenuates at a rate of approximately 3 dB per doubling of distance. Atmospheric conditions such as

wind, temperature gradients, and humidity can change how sound propagates over distance and can

affect the level of sound received at a given location. The degree to which the ground surface absorbs

acoustical energy also affects sound propagation. Sound traveling over a porous, acoustically absorptive

surface such as grass attenuates at a greater rate than sound traveling over a smooth or hard surface such

as pavement or open water. Barriers such as buildings and topography that block the line of sight

between a source and receiver also increase the effective attenuation of sound over distance.

Existing Conditions

Per sound level estimation guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Beachwood-

Bluffton neighborhood of the City of Muskegon that adjoins the project area is anticipated to have a

day-night sound level (Ldn) of 52 dBA based on its population density of 915 people per square mile

(Weichert, 2018). Actual sound pressure levels of the area may be higher based on proximity of a

listener’s position to the shore of Lake Michigan and its wave activity.

The nearest likely NSA appears to be a number of residences along Beach Street between Watson

Avenue and Simpson Avenue that are approximately 750 feet east of the existing LMFS Building #3.

To the north, south, and west, the project is bounded by land uses and geographic areas (including the

open water of Lake Michigan) that do not appear to have nearby residences or other typical NSA.





The following is an assessment of construction noise and vibration for each of the project alternatives.


Construction

Replacement of LMFS Building #3 with a new 2-story wooden structure would, in summary and for

purposes of this analysis, involve a three-phase construction operation: 1) demolition of the existing

structure; 2) site clearing and preparation; and, 3) erection of the new structure on the existing site.

Project construction activities associated with each of these three phases would generate noise, typically

characterized by the loudest equipment in operation onsite. For purposes of this analysis, Table 4.12-1

shows the anticipated aggregate construction activity noise for each expected phase of construction at a

distance of 750 feet, which is the closest perpendicular distance between the expected geographic

center-point of nearest project building construction activity and the aforementioned NSA along Beach

Street. Similar to the FTA “general assessment” technique for estimating construction noise as

described in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual (FTA, 2006), only the

three loudest (shown in order of decreasing hourly Leq) anticipated equipment are considered for each

construction phase. Reference maximum sound levels (Lmax) at distances of fifty feet and acoustical

usage factors for each indicated equipment type are based on empirical data presented in the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) User’s Guide (FHWA,

2006).

Table 4.12-1 Anticipated Aggregate Construction Activity Noise

Anticipated

Construction

Equipment

Estimated Construction Noise Levels (hourly Leq, dBA) at 750 feet,

by Construction Phase

Demolition dBA Grading dBA Erection dBA

1st Loudest Loader 51.5 Grader 57.5 Generator 54.5

2nd

Loudest Backhoe 50.5 Loader 51.5 Crane 49.5

3rd

Loudest Crane 49.5 Dump

truck

48.5 Dump truck 48.5

Total* 50.6 dBA Ldn 54.1 dBA Ldn 51.3 dBA Ldn

* These are Ldn values, assuming listed construction equipment operate for up to a

cumulative total of eight (8) hours per work day; and construction activity only occurs

during daytime hours from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. as permitted by the City of Muskegon, WI.

Table 4.12-1 illustrates that the anticipated construction noise levels by phase range from 51 to 54 dBA

Ldn and are therefore less than the EPA guidance threshold of 55 dBA Ldn. The range is also

comparable to the estimated existing outdoor ambient sound level of 52 dBA Ldn at the nearest NSA,

and would thus be expected to result in no more than a 4 dBA change in the Ldn. While temporary

project construction noise would likely be perceptible at the nearby NSA, it would only occur during

permitted (i.e., daytime) hours and thusly not be considered an adverse effect requiring mitigation

measures.




Although the anticipated construction activities would involve some heavy equipment that can produce

ground-borne vibration, the 750-foot distance to the closest NSA would be expected to attenuate

vibration velocity to levels that are likely to be indistinguishable from existing ambient vibration sources

(e.g., vehicles on local roadways) and far less than FTA-based guidance assessment criteria for human

annoyance and building damage risk. By way of example, a loaded truck produces 86 VdB (decibels of

root-mean-square [rms] vibration velocity, referenced to one micro-inch) at a distance of 25 feet; but at

750 feet, and under typically expected soil/strata conditions, the vibration velocity would only be 42

VdB and much less than the 80 VdB guidance threshold for FTA “Category 2” receivers where people

normally sleep.

Operation

As described by the Purpose and Need section of this EA, replacement of LMFS Building #3 with a new

2-story wooden structure would be expected to create little or no net change in building occupancy and

functions. Hence, for purposes of this analysis, the new HVAC and other noise-producing mechanical

systems replacing existing equipment would not be expected to have substantially different loads, power

consumption, or other factors that influence sound emission. On this basis, project-attributed operation

noise would be anticipated to be comparable to—or potentially less than—existing operation sound

levels experienced at the nearest NSA and therefore not result in an adverse effect requiring noise

mitigation measures.


Replacement of LMFS Building #3 with a new 2-story metal-framed structure would, in summary and

for purposes of this analysis, involve construction activity similar to what has been described and

assessed for Alternative 1. Likewise, expected project-attributed operation noise from the metal-framed

new building and its HVAC/mechanical systems would also be comparable to noise produced from

existing conditions.

For these reasons, construction and operation noise from Alternative 2 would not be expected to create

an adverse effect at nearby NSA requiring noise mitigation measures.


Replacement of LMFS Building #3 with a new single-story structure would, in summary and for

purposes of this analysis, involve construction activity similar to what has been described and assessed

for Alternative 1. Likewise, expected project-attributed operation noise from the new building and its

HVAC/mechanical systems would also be comparable to noise produced from existing conditions.

For these reasons, construction and operation noise from Alternative 3 would not be expected to create

an adverse effect at nearby NSA requiring noise mitigation measures.


The No-Action alternative would not involve any construction activity, and LMFS Building #3 would

continue to operate and produce noise that already contributes to the existing outdoor ambient sound

environment at the nearby NSA.




Hence, Alternative 3 would not be expected to create an adverse effect at nearby NSA requiring noise

mitigation measures.


Given the lack of expected noise and vibration adverse effects attributed to either construction or

operation for the three project Alternatives and the No Action Alternative, no mitigation measures are

anticipated. However, this analysis assumes that project construction activities would be adequately

managed and performed to reflect—to the extent practical—good construction practices with respect to

site noise control and sound abatement that could include (but not be limited to) the following:

Locate stationary, “steady-state” sources of noise (e.g., portable electrical generator or air

compressor) as far away from NSA as possible, and behind trailers or other onsite structures or

walls that can occlude direct sound paths between the noise sources and the NSA.

Reduce construction equipment and vehicle idling times.

Ensure that construction equipment and vehicles feature factory-approved engine combustion

exhaust mufflers and other noise control or sound abatement and that these features are properly

maintained or are otherwise in good working order.

Provide advanced notice to occupants of nearby NSA that construction activity is expected to

occur over some defined period of time during daytime-only hours. In particular, such prior

notice is strongly recommended if activity is anticipated outside of normally-permitted hours.




4.13 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC


The transportation impact analysis assesses the effects of the proposed action on the transportation

network in the community. A qualitative analysis is used to assess whether the proposed action has the

potential to result in a significant impact, and whether a quantitative analysis and prospective

improvements to transportation infrastructure may be necessary. The approach applied involves the use

of trip generation data, essentially the number of inbound and outbound vehicle trips expected to be

generated due to the proposed action during an average day or during peak hour traffic. The expected

trip generation is compared to accepted thresholds to determine whether a more comprehensive traffic

analysis is needed. The trip generation process applied provides an estimate of the number of trips that

would be generated under worst-case conditions. Trip generation rates are then compared to the latest

available traffic counts. When available, a roadway Level of Service (LOS) is identified and the

potential to change to the LOS to a more adverse condition due to the proposed action is considered.

LOS is a qualitative measurement used to describe traffic conditions of a transportation route.

The City of Muskegon Department of Public Works (DPW) is responsible for the operation and

maintenance of the City’s streets, highways, bridges and traffic control.


The City roadways primarily used to access the project area are also used for access to portions of the

Lake Michigan shore and include adjacent beaches, parks and residential neighborhood access. There

are two main through routes from central City of Muskegon that are used to reach the project site:

Route 1: Via Lakeshore Drive westbound to Beach Street northbound into the project area

Route 2: Via Sherman Boulevard westbound to Beach Street northbound to the project area.

These are two-lane paved roads. Segments of Beach Street are one-way, including at the entry driveway

to the GLERL LMFS property. Based on 2016 data received from the West Michigan Shoreline

Regional Development Commission, the 2-way volume count for Lakeshore Drive was 8,161 and

Sherman Boulevard was 3,978 (West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission, 2016).



Implementation of the preferred alternative would not result in a detectable increase in traffic volume on

the roads leading to and from the project site. The proposed action would increase the number of NOAA

employees working at and commuting to and from the station by an estimated 1 employee.

Implementation of the proposed action would not result in an increase of delivery vehicles or other

vehicles coming to and from the station. During construction, equipment and worker vehicles would be

located within the LMFS property, and equipment staged at that location during demolition and

construction phases of the project.




There would be no discernable changes to existing volume count to roadways or in the estimated LOS of

affected intersections due to the proposed action. Based on the negligible number of vehicles associated

with construction and operation of the proposed replacement of Building #3, as well as the current level

of vehicles using affected roadways and the observed capacity of the roads to accommodate traffic, no

adverse effects would result.

Action Alternative 1 would have no adverse effect on transportation resources.


The effects of Action Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. No adverse

environmental effects with respect to transportation would result from the proposed Action Alternative

2.



environmental effects with respect to transportation would result from the proposed Action Alternative

3.



adverse effects to transportation would result.


No mitigation measures are required or recommended in relation to transportation systems and

circulation.




4.14 UTILITIES AND SOLID WASTE


There are no directly applicable federal regulations pertaining to effects of federal actions on local

utilities and public services (i.e., solid waste disposal). Regulatory constraints related to the existing

capacity and distribution of utility services is typically considered through local zoning or land use law.

While the federal government is not required to follow local regulations under the Public Building

Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-678), they strive to assess potential effects of projects and

conform to local requirements to the extent practicable. Muskegon County provides solid waste disposal

via its Solid Waste Management System. The land fill offers disposal for municipal solid waste,

demolition debris, and other materials; no hazardous waste is accepted.

This assessment considers the apparent capacity of utility services and the effects of extending those

services to the project area.


The City of Muskegon supplies the project site with potable water and sewage disposal services.

Electrical power service is provided be Consumers Energy and natural gas service is provided by DTE

Energy. Frontier Communications serves the LMFS with telephone and internet connectivity.

The Muskegon Water Filtration Plant is a conventional water treatment plant with a treatment capacity

of 40 million gallons per day, though it typically treats about 25 million gallons. Customers include the

City of Muskegon and Norton Shores Township, among other communities. An expansion built in 2015,

expands capacity to serve new customers in Fruitport Township and Norton Shores. System wide

storage capacity is currently 19.266 million gallons of treated water storage. The system draws water

from Lake Michigan and the intake pipe extends about a mile shore at a depth of 33 feet (City of

Muskegon, 2017).

Surface features indicating utility locations at the LMFS were identified in a 2011 Prein & Newhof

Topographic Survey (see Appendix D: Reference Materials). Based on conversations with NOAA,

sewer and water utility services pass beneath the adjacent USCG station, and the sewer line from

Building #3 is connected directly to a main sewage line on the USCG facility. Water service is first fed

to Building #1, then to Building #2, and passes under Building #2 to supply water to Building #3.



Existing utility services have supported Building #3, which provides space for laboratory,

administration, maintenance and storage space. The Proposed Action would double the size of Building

#3 and is expected to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification.

Action Alternative 1 would not result in a substantive increase in staff. The potential increase in the

demand for existing public services, such as water, sewer, gas and electric, solid waste disposal and

communication infrastructure, is negligible.




No adverse environmental effects with respect to utilities and service systems would result from the

preferred alternative.



environmental effects with respect to utilities and service systems would result from the proposed




environmental effects with respect to utilities and service systems would result from the proposed




change to existing utility services or infrastructure would result.

No adverse effects to utilities and service systems would result.



Alternative in relation to utility services and infrastructure.




4.15 VISUAL IMPACTS


Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43, U.S.C. Section 1701 (a)(8) states that public lands must

be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of the scenic values. Additionally, Section 1701(c)

identifies scenic values as a resource that should be managed by the public.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

While NEPA does not establish particular guidance for determining the significance of visual/aesthetic

resources impacts, in 43 U.S.C. Section 4331(b)(2), it requires measures be taken to assure that

esthetically pleasing surroundings are available for all Americans.

Bureau of Land Management’s Visual Resource Management System

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed a system for analysis of visual effects on federal

lands. This system is called Visual Resource Management, which involves inventorying scenic values

and establishing management objectives for those values. While Visual Resource Management is

typically applied to large federal landholdings requiring an EIS, these concepts can be applied to provide

a basis for assessing effects within an EA for less expansive federal actions proposed on non-federal

land parcels.

The concepts include actions to:

Identify those views potentially affected and for which the public may express concern.

Describe the existing visual conditions and potentially affected critically sensitive views.

Estimate the intensity of possible adverse visual impacts on those views.

Evaluate the significance of the possible impacts; mitigate, as needed.

Visual/scenic resources, such as, national, state or local parks, areas adjacent to designated wild and

scenic rivers, and regionally scenic byways, routes or views from designated viewing areas have a social

setting, which includes public expectations, values, awareness, and concern regarding visual quality.

This social setting is addressed as “visual sensitivity,” and is important to assessing how important a

visual impact may be and whether or not it represents a significant impact. The visual condition and

degree of visual sensitivity is expressed as one of the following four levels:

High sensitivity: A great potential for the public to react strongly to a threat to visual quality.

Moderate sensitivity: A substantial potential for the public to express concern.

Low sensitivity: A small minority of the public may have a concern.

No sensitivity: There is no ‘sensitivity’ where the potentially affected views are not “public” (not

accessible to the general public).

Levels of visual quality consist of three components evaluated using the following general definitions:

Low quality: Landscape is common to the region and exhibits few, if any, memorable features or

patterns which provide visual diversity.




Moderate: Landscape exhibits reasonably attractive natural and human-made features.

High: Landscape exhibits distinctive and memorable visual features.


The anticipated level of visual sensitivity at surrounding LMFS is considered to be low given the

existing and long-established facilities and other visual elements at LMFS and USCG Station

Muskegon. These consist of one- and two-story structures from different periods and a range of exteriors

(e.g., wood, metal), with chain link fencing and shoreline rip rap. Despite the low sensitivity in the

region, there is a moderate level of visual quality is estimated to be present from public vantage points.

The public access areas within the City of Muskegon Margaret Drake Elliot Park lie to the east

immediately beyond the USCG Station Muskegon facility and its structures. To the south of the LMFS

is the City of Muskegon Pere Marquette Park between Lake Michigan and Beach Street. To the west

approximately 700 feet is the Muskegon Lighthouse. To north beginning about 600 feet from Building

#3 in LMFS is Muskegon State Park. It is an area of natural landscapes situated across the navigation

channel linking Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake, within which are trails and beaches.

Approximately 2,000 feet northeast is the state park’s Channel Campground. View from Lake Michigan

by recreational boaters, mariners and Milwaukee-Muskegon route ferry passengers is also of interest and

have direct views of structures with the LMFS.

Views of Lake Michigan, the Muskegon Lighthouse and the architecture of Building #1 at LMFS

represent an assemblage of attractive natural and man-made physical features; however, they are not

considered highly distinctive, as similar features (lighthouses or early-20th Century structures) are

represented in other locales throughout the Great Lakes region’s shorelines and harbors.

4.15.3 Environmental Effects


The level of visual sensitivity at LMFS is considered to be low. While a moderate level of visual quality

exists based on the natural and man-made features described above, the existing setting would not be

substantially changed due to implementation of Action Alternative 1. The project would replace an

existing single-story metal frame laboratory building with a two-story wood replacement structure. The

exterior design would be guided by measures described in Section 4.7 Cultural Resources, and therefore,

consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for

Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, specifically Standards 3, 9, and 10. However, the footprint

(horizontal extent) of the structure would be unchanged, and a second story would change the height of

the existing roof top from approximately 16 feet to 26 feet above ground level. This would result in a

minor degree of change when viewed from adjacent public areas, including state and city parks, beaches

and from Lake Michigan.

The impact to visual resources would be minor due to implementation of Action Alternative 1.





The effects of Alternative 2 would be the same as Action Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative. The

impact to visual resources would be minor due to implementation of Action Alternative 2.


The level of visual sensitivity at LMFS is considered to be low. While a moderate level of visual quality

exists based on the natural and man-made features described above, the existing setting would not be

substantially changed due to implementation of Action Alternative 3. The project would replace an

existing single-story metal frame laboratory building with another single-story replacement structure on

the same foundational area would be built with articulated horizontal elements to add to the gross square

footage. The design would be guided by measures described in Section 4.7: Cultural Resources and,

therefore, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for

Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, specifically Standards 3, 9, and 10. However, the footprint

(horizontal extent) of the structure would be expanded by 50%, and little to no change the height of the

existing roof top of approximately 16 feet above ground level would occur. This would result in a minor

degree of change when viewed from adjacent public areas, including state and city parks, beaches and

from Lake Michigan.

The impact to visual resources would be minor due to implementation of Action Alternative 3.


Under the No-Action Alternative, NOAA would retain its existing Building #3. No visual impacts would

result.


No mitigation measures are required for either of the Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action

Alternative, relative to aesthetics and visual resources.




4.16 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS


In an effort to promote safe handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, hazardous materials

and waste management in the State of Michigan are subject, but not limited, to Federal regulatory

requirements contained in 40 CFR of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as well as

State regulatory requirements contained in the NREPA 451 of 1994 and the Michigan Department of

Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (DLARA). These laws and regulations seek to promote the safe

handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials to prevent unnecessary harm to human and

environmental health.

At the Federal level, the USEPA, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (USNRC), and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (USDEA) provide

oversight of proper waste management practices. Many of the State rules have adopted federal

requirements set forth by the USEPA under RCRA. In Michigan, oversight of proper waste management

at the local level is conducted by the MDEQ, DLARA, the Michigan Department of Agricultural and

Rural Development (DARD) and the Michigan State Police (MSP). Local jurisdiction regarding proper

waste management may also be conducted by solid waste management authorities, wastewater treatment

plant authorities, fire department, and county health departments.

The following hazardous waste regulations (as overseen by the MDEQ) potentially to pertain to the

proposed action at the GLERL LMFS for the replacement of Building #3:

Solid waste regulations under Part 115 of NREPA Public Act 451 of 1994, as amended;

Liquid industrial by-product regulations under Part 121 of NREPA Public Act 451 of

1994;

Transportation of hazardous materials (DEQ requirements) under the Hazardous

Materials Transportation Act (Public Act 138 of 1998);

Wastewater regulations under Part 2(Water Resource Protection) of NREPA Act 451;

and

Air pollution regulations under Part 55 (Air Pollution Control) of NREPA Act 451.

Other Federal regulations include:

RCRA Title 40 CFR Parts 260-279;

Federal wastewater regulations under the CWA; and

Federal air pollution regulations under the CAA.

Safety during construction and workplace activities are also subject to the MIOSHA requirements. This

includes training for persons working with asbestos and asbestos-containing materials (ACM) under Part

602 “Asbestos Standards for Construction” as amended.





Building #3 at the GLERL LMFS in Muskegon, Michigan, is an approximately 2,600 gross square feet

(GSF) marine laboratory building predominantly used for preparing and working with small preserved

samples and for sample storage. Subsidence of the sub-slab has created hazardous walking conditions

within the building and at exterior doors. The cause of subsidence was determined to be improperly

prepared soils below the construction of the building in the mid-1960s.

Building #3 contains a small staging area used to prepare equipment and materials for sample collection,

refrigerators for sample storage, and several overhead lofts utilized for preserved sample storage. Also

housed in Building #3 is a filtration desktop (water filtration, bottle preparation, short-term sample

storage in incubators), dark room, and office space. Several hazardous chemicals, including formalin

(Formaldehyde) and ethanol are stored in Building #3 within corrosive materials and flammable

materials cabinets and are mostly used for preserving chlorophyll samples.

The GLERL LMFS is situated atop of a near-shore dune environment on Lake Michigan coast. The

Point Betsie Lighthouse and marine ship channel leading into Muskegon Lake border the site to the

north, while the USCG Station Muskegon, Pere Marquette City Park, and Lake Michigan bound the site

to the east, south, and west, respectively. A geotechnical report prepared in 2011 for construction

activities immediately north of the project area at Building #2 indicates groundwater depth to be

approximately 6 to 7 feet bgs.

Environmental databases and governmental records, provided by Environmental Data Resources Inc.

on December 3, 2017, were utilized and reviewed (“environmental records review”) to characterize the

obvious and apparent uses of the site and surrounding properties, and identify potential recognized

environmental conditions that might affect the project site. The GLERL LMFS is listed under the

RCRA database as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG). CESQG’s produce less

than 220 pounds (100 kilograms) of non-acute hazardous waste per month and never accumulate 2,200

pounds (1,000 kilograms) or more at a time. Regulatory requirements for CESQG’s do not limit how

long waste can be accumulated, provided the following conditions are not exceeded. Database search

results also indicate that a gasoline service station was operated approximately 600 feet from the

GLERL LMFS from 1998 to 2014 and may correspond to the historical underground storage tank

(UST) installed at the Point Betsie Lighthouse located roughly 600 feet from the site. A small hydraulic

fluid spill (250 milliliters) was reported during maintenance activities on the research vessel (R/V)

Shenohan in 1997; however, no other spills or violations associated at or near the GLERL LMFS were

obtained.

The USCG facility adjacent to the eastern property border of the LMFS property is also listed in the

RCRA database as a CESQG. The USCG Station Muskegon also houses an active 2,000 gallon above

ground diesel storage tank. No reports of leaks or spills associated with the USCG facility were

obtained.






It is assumed that prior to demolition of the existing Building #3, all samples, preservatives, and

hazardous waste would be removed from the construction site. Hazardous waste should be removed

from the site prior to construction activities as outlined in Michigan’s Part 121 Liquid Industrial By-

Products of NREPA Act 451 of 1994, as amended. Archived samples no longer needed should also be

discarded appropriately to minimize, if not eliminate, the amount of hazardous materials encountered

and handled during construction activities. A hazardous materials management plan should be prepared

in advance of construction activities detailing how to properly handle, transport, and store materials, if

encountered, during construction activities.

The proximity of the project area to Lake Michigan would require adherence to Michigan’s Part 91 (Soil

Erosion and Sediment Control) Rules which typically require a permit when a construction project is

within 500 feet from a lake or stream regardless of size. Additionally, observed depth to groundwater,

reported to be between 6 and 7 feet bgs, would require dewatering of the construction site. Wastewater

from discharging groundwater is subject to permit requirements under Act 451.

Construction equipment utilizing diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, and other fuel/oils may also cause adverse

environmental impacts in the event of a spill. Loose to very loose sands at the site and the proximity to

surface water increase the potential for adversely impacting the environment during the event of a spill

and as such, spill prevention procedures should be considered. Catch basins and storm water runoff

must be considered by NOAA and its construction contractor when devising erosion control measures

and in the preparation and execution of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).

Building #3 was constructed in approximately circa1970, prior to the majority of EPA bans regarding

ACM and lead-based paint. Therefore, the demolition of Building #3, including ceiling and floor tiles,

may expose workers to ACM and/or lead-based based. If an ACM or lead-based paint survey has not

already been completed prior to demolition within Building #3, an ACM survey shall be conducted by

an approved contractor in compliance with State and Federal requirements.

Action Alternative 1 would have no adverse effects associated with interactions with known hazardous

materials provided standard mitigation measures are implemented and associated permits are acquired.


The effects of implementing Action Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative.

Action Alternative 2 would have no adverse effects associated with known hazardous materials provided

standard mitigation measures are implemented and associated permits are acquired.


The effects of implementing Action Alternative 3 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative.

Action Alternative 3 would have no adverse effects associated with hazardous materials provided

standard mitigation measures are implemented and associated permits are acquired.





The No-Action Alternative would have no adverse effects associated with known hazardous materials.


Given the proximity of the proposed construction site to Lake Michigan, appropriate erosional control

measures would be necessary.

Given the likely need for dewatering of the construction site, conditions of approval within required

state permits would be followed prior to implementing construction/demolition activities.




4.17 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE


EO 12898, known as the Federal Environmental Justice Policy, requires all federal agencies to identify

and develop strategies to address disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental

impacts of its programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income populations in the United

States and its territories to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law (Federal Register, 1994).

Federal agencies are required to make all documents, notices and hearings related to human health and

the environment accessible to the public. The EO is intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal

programs, as well as provide minorities and low income populations with access to information and

public participation.

Impact assessment criteria associated with environmental justice require that a significant adverse

impact will not be predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, and

that the impact not be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than would be suffered by the

non-minority population and/or non-low-income population. This section evaluates regional and census

tract population and economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to assess affected populations and the

potential for disproportionately high adverse effects to occur.


The proposed action would be implemented in the City of Muskegon, County of Muskegon, Michigan.

Muskegon is located in western Michigan, adjacent to Muskegon Lake to the north and the eastern

shores of Lake Michigan to the west. The City of Muskegon population in 2015 was estimated at

37,861, the County of Muskegon was estimated at 171,483 and Census Tract 10 was 1,181. The City

and Census Tract 10 experienced a population decline, while the County experienced a slight population

increase between the years 2000 to 2015. Table 4.17-1 summarizes the change in the population for the

City, County and U.S. Census Tract 10 between the years 2000, 2010 and 2015.

Table 4.17-1 Population Change by Geographic Area

Geographic Area 2000 2010

(% Change ) 2015 (% Change 2000-

2015)

US Census Tract 10 1,301 1,339 1,181 -9.2%

City of Muskegon 40,105 38,401 37,861 -5.6%

County Muskegon 170,200 172,188 171,483 0.75%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, 2010, 2015

Individuals identified as White made up over half of the population in the City and were the

predominate race identified in the County and Census Tract 10 during 2015 (US Census Bureau, 2015).

Between the years 2000 to 2015, minorities represented in the City, County and Census Tract 141.05




either increased slightly or remained static. Table 4.17-2 illustrates the racial profile of County, City,

and U.S. Census Tract 10 from 2000 to 2015.

Table 4.17-2 Racial Profile by Geographic Area

Race 2000 2010 2015

Census

Tract

Muskegon

City

Muskegon

County

Census

Tract

Muskegon

City

Muskegon

County

Census

Tract

Muskegon

City

Muskegon

County

White

98% 61% 82% 95% 57% 80% 94% 59% 81%

Minority 2% 39% 18% 5% 43% 20% 6% 41% 19%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, 2010, 2015

The percentage of the population living in poverty is determined by the family size and earning less than

a certain amount of income, which is adjusted each year by the U.S. Census Bureau based on inflation

and other factors.

Poverty thresholds are the dollar amount used by the U.S. Census Bureau to determine a family’s

poverty status. The following values represent the National poverty thresholds since 2000 for a family of

four, two adults and two dependents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; 2010; 2015):

2000 – $ 13,874

2010 – $ 22,314

2015 – $ 24,036

Table 4.17-3 illustrates the mean income for a household, families living under poverty status, the

percentage of the population over 16 years of age in the labor force and the percentage of the population

that is unemployed in the City, County, and Census Tract 10. The mean income of a household in 2015

in Census Tract 10 was $83,733, which was substantially higher than the City and Census Tract (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2015). Census Tract 10 also experienced substantially lower percentage of families

living in poverty compared to the City and County, but a slightly higher unemployment rate.

Table 4.17-3 Socioeconomic Factors by Geographic Area

Geographic Area Mean Household

Income

Poverty Status for all

Families

Labor Unemployment

Census Tract 10 $ 83,733 2.1% 49.6% 10.1%

Muskegon City $ 38,818 29.8% 49.4% 9.1%

Muskegon County $ 58,526 14.5% 58.6% 7.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015






The Preferred Alternative would have negligible socioeconomic effects. Existing conditions in housing,

incomes and poverty rates are expected to remain unchanged due to the proposed actions. Some short-

term economic benefits to the communities in or near Muskegon may be experienced, as Building #3

demolition and replacement would require a small number of workers related to construction and

evaluation activities. Imperceptible increases in noise and air emissions may occur during the project

construction period. However, these effects are temporary and not expected to be substantial based on

the analysis of these topics in other sections of this EA.

Therefore, no minority or low-income populations are present that would be adversely affected. There

would be no adverse effects from the Preferred Alternative with respect to environmental justice.


The effects of Action Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, no

minority or low-income populations are present that would be adversely affected.

There would be no adverse effects from Action Alternative 2 with respect to environmental justice.


The effects of Action Alternative 3 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, no

minority or low-income populations are present that would be adversely affected.

There would be no adverse effects from Action Alternative 3 with respect to environmental justice.



adverse effects to environmental justice or socioeconomic resources would result.



Alternative in relation to environmental justice and socioeconomics.




4.18 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS


A cumulative impact must be evaluated under the NEPA and is defined as “the impact on the

environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person

undertakes such other actions.” Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively

significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR, Part 1508.7).

Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with other effects in a

particular place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting

environmental degradation, that is the focus of this cumulative impact analysis. While impacts can be

differentiated by direct, indirect, and cumulative, the concept of cumulative impacts takes into account

all foreseeable disturbances, since cumulative impacts result in the compounding of the effects of all

actions over time. Thus, the cumulative impacts of an action can be viewed as the total effects on a

resource, ecosystem, or human community no matter what entity (federal, non-federal, or private) is

taking the action.

This analysis of cumulative effects summarizes the evaluation of resources, ecosystems, and human

communities identified and discussed in this EA relative to other foreseeable future actions. It considers

the proximity and timing of other concurrent or future foreseeable actions and the potential for

exacerbated effects or conflicts that would result in a potentially significant impact. The evaluation

considers resources subject to potential cumulative effects and refers back, if necessary, to information

presented in the earlier discussion of project-only effects.

In general, the proposed action is not reliant upon or connected to other actions, nor is it relied upon for

the occurrence of other actions. For each of the subject areas analyzed, the contribution of the proposed

action is not expected to be considerable provided that appropriate mitigation measures are

implemented.


Recent, on-going and foreseeable future projects were considered that may occur at and near LMFS.

This information is based on readily available publications and websites. No foreseeable and

substantive actions were identified.

The focus of the City of Muskegon regarding its adjacent parklands is to concentrate its resources on

maintaining and upgrading existing facilities, rather that expansion. Given the lack of available funding,

not substantial projects within adjacent parklands and open space were identified. One exception may be

the purchase of land for the Lakeshore Trail bike path following the sale and conversion of the Chase

Hammond Golf Course. Additional property may be needed as sections of the trail are linked

throughout the city to the State of Michigan Trail System and additional linkages to the lakeshore are

desired.

No specific, local projects were identified for the residential, recreational, and commercial land use

areas existing along the banks of Muskegon Lake. A 2015 evaluation of benefits for development in this




lakeshore region was conducted (Development Research Partners, 2015). The study generally examined

the potential temporary and on-going economic and fiscal benefits of expanded commercial activities

and port revitalization to Muskegon County. While clear benefits were identified, specific and

foreseeable programs or projects were not introduced.



No readily available or foreseeable development actions were identified that would be considered as a

cumulative impact, in addition to project-specific impacts. No adverse cumulative effects with respect

to Cumulative Impacts upon each of the resources analyzed are anticipated to occur under Action

Alternative 1.



effects with respect to Cumulative Impacts upon each of the resources analyzed would result from the

proposed Action Alternative 2.



effects with respect to Cumulative Impacts upon each of the resources analyzed would result from the

proposed Action Alternative 3.


Under the No-Action Alternative, no contribution to regional development would occur at or near the

project area. No adverse effects would result.


No mitigation measures are recommended or required relative to Cumulative Impacts.

5 Community Involvement Draft Environmental Assessment



5.0 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

This Draft EA will be made available for public comment over a 30-day period, Wednesday, February 28 through Friday, March 30, 2018. An announcement in the Public Notices section of the Muskegon

Chronicle will be issued in printed and e-editions for seven days notifying the public of the availability

of the Draft EA on a NOAA website, and instructions provided for receiving a printed copy, for

review and comment prior to the end of the comment period.

Comments received prior to the end of the 30-day comment period will be reviewed and considered by

NOAA. Where appropriate, these comments will be further addressed in a Final EA and considered in

advance of any determination by NOAA to issue a FONSI or prepare an EIS.

5 Community Involvement Draft Environmental Assessment




6 Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested Mitigation Draft Environmental Assessment



6.0 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS AND SUGGESTED

MITIGATION

No anticipated environmental impacts were identified in relation to the No-Action Alternative. Table

6.0-1 summarizes the anticipated environmental impacts by environmental resource identified for each

action alternative and the mitigation measures required to support a finding of no significant impact.

Table 6.0-1 Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation

Land Use Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No mitigation measures are recommended.





Geological

Resources


Negligible


Negligible


Negligible


Best management practices would be utilized for

soil erosion control.












Air Quality Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect


Standard and customary BMPs during construction

should be applied to minimize construction-related

emissions, including (but not limited to) dust

suppression on unpaved areas, minimization of

vehicle and equipment idling, covering of materials

stockpiles, and recycling construction and

demolition materials where possible.

















Water Resources Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect







Recreational

Resources


No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect







Cultural

Resources


Less than significant
















Flora and Fauna Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect







Wetlands Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect







Floodplains Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect







Coastal Zone

Management Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect







Farmlands Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect












Noise Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect


Reduce construction equipment and vehicle idling

times. Provide advanced notice to occupants of

nearby NSA that construction activity is expected

to occur. Ensure that construction equipment and

vehicles feature factory-approved engine

combustion exhaust mufflers and other noise

control or sound abatement, and that these features

are properly maintained or are otherwise in good

working order.










working order.










working order.

Transportation Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect







Utilities and

Solid Waste


No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect







Visual Impacts Action Alternative 1:

Minor effect Action Alternative 1:








Minor effect


Minor effect





Hazardous

Materials Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect


Apply appropriate erosional control measures and

dewatering of the construction site.







Environmental

Justice Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect







Cumulative Action Alternative 1:

No adverse effect


No adverse effect


No adverse effect







7 Findings Draft Environmental Assessment



7.0 FINDINGS

Based on the analysis potential effects to key natural and man-made resources due to the proposed

action, no significant impacts would result from the implementation of either of the three Action

Alternatives, or the No-Action Alternative.

A FONSI is warranted for the proposed action evaluated in this EA.

7 Findings Draft Environmental Assessment




8 Preparers Draft Environmental Assessment



8.0 PREPARERS

John A. Chamberlain

Mr. Chamberlain is a certified Senior Project Manager for AECOM’s San Jose office and served as the Project

Manager. Mr. Chamberlain has an MS in Environmental Studies with over 30 years of experience in National

Environmental Policy Act analysis and related studies.

Otto Alvarez

Mr. Alvarez is a Senior GIS Specialist for AECOM’s Oakland office and served as a GIS Specialist. He holds a

PhD in Environmental Systems. Mr. Alvarez has conducted research on ecological niche modeling and

specializes in ArcGIS.

Trina Meiser

Ms. Meiser is an Environmental Planner for AECOM’s San Diego office and served as the Cultural Resource

specialist. Ms. Meiser has an MA in Historic Preservation Planning with over 17 years of experience and

specializes in Section 106 of NHPA compliance, NEPA and CEQA compliance.

Elizabeth Vanderhoef

Ms. Vanderhoef is a Geologist for AECOM’s Grand Rapids office and served as the Geology, Water Resources

and Hazardous Materials specialist. Ms.Vanderhoef has a BS in Geology with over five years of experience and

specializes in field oversight for environmental and remedial investigations.

Michelle Dunn

Ms. Dunn is an Environmental Planner for AECOM’s San Jose office and served as the Air Quality specialist.

Ms. Dunn has a BA in Environmental Analysis and Design with over 11 years of experience and specializes in

environmental planning.

Clara Austin

Ms. Austin is a Biologist for AECOM’s Grand Rapids office and served as the Flora and Fauna and Wetlands

specialist. Ms. Austin has a BS in Biology with over four years of experience and biological resource assessment.

Geoff Thorton

Mr. Thornton is a Senior Environmental Planner for AECOM’s Oakland office and served as the Floodplains

policy specialist. Mr. Thornton has BS in ecology and over 18 years of experience in CEQA and NEPA and

specializes in environmental compliance for vegetation management, wildfire mitigation and water resources.

Mark Storm

Mr. Storm is a Principal Environmental Noise Specialist from AECOM’s San Diego office and served as the

Noise specialist. An Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) Board Certified member, Mr. Storm has a BS

in aeronautical engineering with over 25 years of experience and specializes in noise modeling and analyses.

Stephanie Osby

Ms. Osby is an Environmental Planner for AECOM’s San Jose office and served as a Project Planner. Ms. Osby

holds an MS in Environmental Management with over six years of experience and specializes in land use,

agricultural and ecological evaluations.

8 Preparers Draft Environmental Assessment




9 References Draft Environmental Assessment



9.0 REFERENCES

Cardno Government Services Division, 2017. Final Report: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Facility

Condition Assessment, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL).City of Muskegon,

2017. Draft Source Water Intake Protection Plan, City of Muskegon Water Supply, WSSN 4570,

prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., October 2017.

City of Muskegon, 2016. Muskegon Parks & Recreation Master Plan, Watch Muskegon, 2016.

City of Muskegon, 2012. City of Muskegon: Zoning Ordinance Article 17. Available online at

http://www.muskegon-mi.gov/departments/planning/zoning/. Accessed December 13, 2017.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2016. Floodplain Management. Available online at:

https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/floodplain-management. Accessed December 5,

2018.

Detroit Free Press, 1904. New Station for Muskegon. Printed on December 28, 1904.

Development Research Partners, 2015. The Economic and Fiscal Benefits of the Port of Muskegon, A Study of

the Current Port Benefits and Potential for Increased Economic Activity by 2020, prepared by

Development Research Partners for Consumers Energy, December 2015.

Environmental Data Resources Inc., 2017. EDR report for NOAA Muskegon, 1431 Beach Street, Muskegon, MI.,

49441, Inquiry Number 5124594.2s. Accessed December 3, 2017.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015. Flood Insurance Rate Map Muskegon County, Michigan, Panel

252 of 475, Map Number 26121C0252D, July 6, 2015.

Federal Highway Administration, 2006 (January). Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Final

Report. FHWA-HEP-05-054, DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. Prepared for FHWA Office of Natural and

Human Environment, Washington, DC. Prepared by U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and

Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,

Acoustics Facility, Cambridge, MA.

Federal Transit Administration, 2006 (May). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Final Report. FTA-

VA-90-1003-06. Washington, DC.

Historicaerials.com. Interactive historic aerials 1969 search of NOAA Muskegon, 1431 Beach Street, Muskegon,

MI., 49441. Available online at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Historic Preservation Northwest, no date. Chapter III, Architecture. Available online at http://www.hp-

nw.com/images/Thesis/Chap03%20Architecture.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2017.

Hyde, Charles K., 1982. United States Coast Guard Lighthouses and Light Stations on the Great Lakes, National

Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form.

https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/floodplain-management

https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer

http://www.hp-nw.com/images/Thesis/Chap03%20Architecture.pdf

http://www.hp-nw.com/images/Thesis/Chap03%20Architecture.pdf




Koski-Karell, D., M. Wiedenfeld, C. Blackwell, M. Mowick, K. Plimpton, and L. Vermass, 2013. U.S.

Government Lifesaving Stations, Houses of Refuge, and Pre-1950 U.S. Coast Guard Lifeboat Stations.

U.S. Coast Guard Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2017a. Atlas of Critical Dunes - Township Maps of Critical

Dune Areas. Available online at http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3311_4114_4236-70207--

,00.html. Accessed December 5, 2017.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2017b. Critical Dunes Area Program Webpage. Available online

at http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3311_4114-9832--,00.html. Accessed December 12, 2017.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2016. Michigan Guide to Environmental, Health, and Safety

Regulations. Available online at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-tou-EHSguide-

complete_604181_7.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2018.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2003. Political Townships Containing Designated Critical Dune

Areas Map. Available online at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wrd-dune-cda-

statewide_557624_7.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2017.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1978. State of Michigan Coastal Management Program and

Final Environmental Impact Statement. Available online at http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-

3313_3677_3696-379671--,00.html. Accessed December 6, 2017.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Attainment Status for National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). Updated July 31, 2017. Available online at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-

aqd-aqe-mi_attainment_status_map_407842_7.pdf Accessed December 26, 2017.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 2017. Land and Water management Division, Map of High Risk

Erosion Areas & Critical Dune Areas, Cities of Muskegon and Norton Shores, Michigan, updated May 3,

2017.

Michigan Lighthouse Conservancy, 2007. “Muskegon Life Saving Station,” Available online at

http://www.michiganlights.com/MuskegonLSS.htm. Accessed December 5, 2017.

MNFI, 2017. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Accessed December 12, 2017.

Muskegon City Code. Chapter 26 – Environment. Last accessed January 4, 2018 at http://www.muskegon-

mi.gov/documents/pdf/1396.pdf.

Muskegon County, 2017. “History,” Available online at:

http://www.co.muskegon.mi.us/history_of_muskegon.htm.

Muskegon Lights, 2017. “History of the Muskegon Lighthouses,” Available online at:

http://www.muskegonlights.org/about-the-lights/history/.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-tou-EHSguide-complete_604181_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-tou-EHSguide-complete_604181_7.pdf

http://www.michiganlights.com/MuskegonLSS.htm




National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012. Guidance on Compliance with the Implementing

Procedures for Executive Orders 11988 and 11990.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, 2016.

“Happy Birthday to the U.S. Coast Guard –Our Nearest Neighbors in Muskegon.” Available online at:

https://noaaglerl.blog/2016/08/04/happy-birthday-to-the-u-s-coast-guard-our-nearest-neighbors-in-

muskegon/.

National Park Service., 2017. “Surfmen of the U.S. Life-Saving Service.” Available online at:

http://www.nps.gov/calo/historyculture/surfmen.htm.

National Park Service. “U.S. Government Lifesaving Stations, Houses of Refuge, and pre-1950 U.S. Coast Guard

Lifeboat Stations Multiple Property Submission Cover.” Available online at:

https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/64501177.htm.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2017. Custom Soil Resource Report for the project site at the NOAA

field station. December 4, 2017. Downloaded from NRCS Web Soil Survey website:

www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, no date. Custom Soil Resource Report for City of Muskegon, County of

Muskegon, Michigan. Downloaded from NRCS WebSoil Survey website:

www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed December 4, 2017.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2002. USDA Environmental Compliance Library Farmland Protection

Policy Act (2002), Available online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE

DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1042432.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2017.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2016. Farmland Protection Policy Act. Available online at:

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?ss=16&navtype=SUBNAVIGATION&cid=nrs143_008

275&navid=100170180000000&position=Welcome.Html&ttype=detail. Accessed December 4, 2017.

Occhipinti, Matthew, 2018. Department of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division, email

communication, January 11, 2018.

Office of Management and Budget, 2015. Intergovernmental Review (SPOC List). Available online at:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/grants_spoc. Accessed December 13, 2017.

President of the United States of America, 1977. Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, dated

May 24, 1977.

Shook, Jeff, 2018. A History of Muskegon Lighthouses. Available online at

http://www.muskegonlights.org/about-the-lights/history/. Accessed December 4, 2017.

State of Michigan, 2017. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (Excerpt); Act 451 of 1994; Part

353, Sand Dunes Protection and Management. Available online at

http://www.nps.gov/calo/historyculture/surfmen.htm

http://www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.%20Accessed

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE%20DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1042432.pdf

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE%20DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1042432.pdf

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?ss=16&navtype=SUBNAVIGATION&cid=nrs143_008275&navid=100170180000000&position=Welcome.Html&ttype=detail

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?ss=16&navtype=SUBNAVIGATION&cid=nrs143_008275&navid=100170180000000&position=Welcome.Html&ttype=detail

http://www.muskegonlights.org/about-the-lights/history/




http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(33fn5m45bnvdug55etykedzl))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-451-1994-III-1-

LAND-HABITATS-353.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2017.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation

Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region. January 2012.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Poverty Threshold, Table. Available online at

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html.

Accessed December 1, 2017.







U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. United States Census Bureau data for 2000 for County of Muskegon County, City of

Muskegon, Census Tract 10.





U.S. Coast Guard, 2014. “U.S. Coast Guard: Historical Overview.” Available online at:

http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/h_USCGhistory.asp.

U.S. Coast Guard, no date. Coast Guard Station (ANT) Muskegon History webpage. Available online at

http://www.atlanticarea.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/District-9/Ninth-District-Units/Sector-Lake-

Michigan/Units/Muskegon/History/. Accessed December 1, 2017.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect

Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 550/9-74-004. Last accessed January 4,

2018 at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000L3LN.TXT.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017a. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service; All About Piping Plovers. Available at:

http://www.fws.gov/plover/facts.html. Accessed December 12, 2017.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997. USGS 1997 aerial image of NOAA Muskegon Station, 1431 Beach Street,

Muskegon, MI., 49441 retrieved from Google Earth on DATE?.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1972. Muskegon West [map], 1:24000 Topographic Quadrangle Map. Available online

at http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/index.html.

http://www.atlanticarea.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/District-9/Ninth-District-Units/Sector-Lake-Michigan/Units/Muskegon/History/

http://www.atlanticarea.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/District-9/Ninth-District-Units/Sector-Lake-Michigan/Units/Muskegon/History/

http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/index.html




Weichert, 2018. Beachwood-Bluffon Muskegon, MI Overview. Last accessed January 31, 2018 at

https://www.weichert.com/search/community/neighborhood.aspx?hood=62212.

West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission, 2016. Traffic Count Database System (TCDS).

Available online at http://wmsrdc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Wmsrdc&mod. Accessed January 2,

2018.

Water Resources Council, 2015. “Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management,

and Executive Order 13690” Dated October 8, 2015.

Yakes, Daniel J., 2013. History. Muskegon County Michigan. Available online at

http://www.co.muskegon.mi.us/history_of_muskegon.htm. Accessed December 7, 2017.

http://www.co.muskegon.mi.us/history_of_muskegon.htm

Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment



Appendix A: List of Tribal Consultations Initiated and template of letter sent to tribes

Tribe Name Address City, State, ZIP

Bay Mills Indian Community Paula Carrick, THPO 12140 West Lakeshore Drive Brimley, MI 49715

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa

Indians

Cindy Winslow, Museum

Director

Eyaawing Museum & Cultural

Center

Suttons Bay, MI 49682

Hannahville Indian Community Earl Meshigaud N-14911 Hannahville B1 Road Wilson, MI 49896

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community of the Lake

Superior Band of Chippewa Indians

Gary Loonsfoot, Jr., THPO 16429 Bear Town Road Baraga, MI 49908

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa Indians

Daisy McGeshick, THPO P.O. Box 249 Watersmeet, MI 49969

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Jonnie J. Sam, Director 375 River Street Manistee, MI 49660

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Wes Andrews, THPO 7500 Odawa Circle Harbor Springs, MI 49740

Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of

Pottawatomi Indians

Sydney Martin 3556 26th Street Hopkins, MI 49328

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi Douglas Taylor, Interim

Cultural Historic Preservation

Office Manager/THPO

2221 1 1/2 Mile Road Fulton, MI 49052

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Jason S Wesaw, THPO 58620 Sink Road Dowagiac, MI 49047

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan William Johnson, Interim THPO Ziibiwing Center of Anishinabe

Culture and Lifeways

Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Cecil Pavlat, Cultural

Repatriation Specialist

523 Ashmun Street Sault Ste Marie, MI 49783

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians,

Minnesota

Darrell Seki, Chairman P.O. Box 550 Red Lake, MN 56671

Forest County Potawatomi Community,

Wisconsin

Harold Frank, Chairman P.O. Box 340 Crandon, WI 54520

Prairie Island Indian Community in the State

of MN

Shelley Buck, President 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN 55089

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians,

Michigan & Indiana

John Warren, Chairperson P.O. Box 180 Dowagiac, MI 49047

Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of

Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan

Scott Sprague, Chairperson 2872 Mission Drive Shelbyville, MI 49344

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi,

MI

Jamie Stuck, Chairperson 1485 Mno-Bmadzewen Way Fulton, MI 49052

Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Ethel Cook, Chief P.O. Box 110 Miami, OK 74355

Citizen Potawatomi Nation (Oklahoma) John Barrett, Chairman 1601 South Gordon Cooper Drive Shawnee, OK 74801

December XX, 2017

Contact Name, Contact Title

Tribal Entity Name

Address

Address

City, State ZIP

Subject: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Great Lakes Environmental

Research Laboratory (GLERL) Lake Michigan Field Station (LMFS) Building 3

Replacement Project in Muskegon, Muskegon County, Michigan

Dear Mr./Ms.____________,


Research (OAR) is proposing to replace its existing Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

(GLERL) Lake Michigan Field Station (LMFS) Building 3 in Muskegon, Muskegon County, Michigan (the

“Project”). The LMFS is located at 1431 Beach Street, Muskegon, MI 49441-1098. NOAA has retained

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) to provide support services to the Project. The attached maps

depict the Project location (Figures 1 and 2).

The three main structures at the LMFS campus support GLERL's Ecosystem Dynamics theme with on-

site researchers, laboratory facilities and storage, and direct access to ship resources. The LMFS also

provides a base and accommodations for offsite researchers from GLERL and partner agencies. Science

at LMFS is primarily focused on field-based long-term observations and field-based shorter-term process

studies in Lake Michigan.

Specifically, Building 3 is a 2,600 square-foot (SF) pre-engineered steel building constructed circa 1969

and is currently used for storage and laboratory space. Subsidence and cracking of the interior floor

foundation, consisting of four independent concrete slabs within a perimeter foundation, has created trip

hazards at the exterior doors and caused damage to interior walls.

Due to this deterioration, the Project Proposed Action is to demolish and remove the existing Building 3

structure and interior foundation slabs, then prepare a replacement foundation within the existing

perimeter foundation and construct a new 5,000 SF, two-story laboratory. The design and construction of

the proposed replacement laboratory building would include demolition, removal of all pavements, utilities,

and other appurtenances, and the repurposing or recycling of materials, and testing and preparation of

sandy soils within the foundation envelop. Following established design parameters, construction would

include new concrete foundation slabs, a wood or metal framed structure, interior finishes, HVAC, exhaust,

electrical, plumbing, fixtures, appliances, and other improvements, such as site drainage, landscaping,

exterior lighting and security systems.

The new building construction is not expected to require any new land, but will be a replacement of the

existing building and surrounding pavement and utilities. AECOM requested an archaeological records

check of the Project area from the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (MI SHPO) of the Michigan

State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA). According to the MI SHPO Archaeologists, no

previously reported archaeological sites have been found at the NOAA building location or within a 0.25-

mile radius of the GLERL Lake Michigan Field Station.

NOAA respectfully requests your review and comment regarding the potential for the Project to affect

cultural resources of tribal concern. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this

letter or wish to review additional cultural resources information pertaining to the Project, please do not

hesitate to contact Lynn Gierek, AECOM Senior Archaeologist, at the email address:

[email protected].

We appreciate your dedication of time and attention to this matter. Thank you for your assistance

regarding the Project.

Sincerely,

Randolph Ghertler

Federal Preservation Officer

Enclosure: Figure 1: Project Location Map

Figure 2: Project Area Map

mailto:[email protected]

Figure 1Project Location

NOAA GLERL LMFS Building 3 Replacement Project, Muskegon County, Michigan

Source: National Geographic Society 2013; USGS 7.5' Quad: Muskegon West; Township 10 North, Range 17 West, Section 28

Scale: 1 = 24,000; 1 inch = 2,000 feet

Path: O:\Practices\Cultural\ARCHY\Lauren\60556155 GLERL\mxd\Fig01_NOAA_Muskegon _topo.mxd, 12/8/2017, downsl1

0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet

I

Project Location

!\

Figure 2Project Area

NOAA GLERL LMFS Building 3 Replacement Project, Muskegon County, Michigan

Source: ESRI Imagery, NOAA

Scale: 1 = 24,000; 1 inch = 2,000 feet

Path: O:\Practices\Cultural\ARCHY\Lauren\60556155 GLERL\mxd\Fig02_NOAA_Muskegon _aerial.mxd, 12/8/2017, downsl1

0 100 20050 Feet

I

NOAA Building 3LEGEND


Pere Marquette Park

Beach Street Rd

L A K EM I C H I G A N

U.S. CoastGuard Station

NOAAGLERLLMFS




Appendix B: Biological Site Inspection Photographs

A

Bldg 3 (east side) looking NW

Bldg 3 (west side) looking N

Bldg 3 (west side) looking SSE

Bldg 3 (south side) looking WNW

Building 3 (north side) looking S

Building 3 (north side) looking SW

Building 3 (north side) looking W

Building 3 (west side) looking NE

Building 3 (south side) looking NW

NOAA vehicle-pedestrian access looking N




Appendix C: Michigan Natural Feature Inventory Information

Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request

Clara Austin

GLERL LMFS Bldg Replacement

Muskegon, MI

November 21, 2017

Requestor:

Project:

Location:

Request submission date:

November 21, 2017Print Date:

Detailed information on the species listed in this report can be found in abstracts and the rare species explorer on the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) website. The MNFI website can be found at: http :// mnfi . anr . msu . edu /

The species in this report are listed alphabetically by scientific name. Each record from the database is listed individually. Therefore you may see multiple listings for the same species. The locational and survey date information may be the only differentiating factors when looking at multiple occurrences for a given species. Heritage methodology is followed when entering species occurrences into the MNFI database. Detailed information on heritage methodology can be obtained on NatureServe’s website at the link listed below. http :// www . natureserve . org / prodServices / heritagemethodology . jsp

By acceptance of the information services made available through MNFI the recipient understands that access to the information is provided for primary use only. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of the information. There should be no redistribution of the information. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection. Additionally, since the information is constantly being updated MNFI requests that any information service provided by MNFI is destroyed upon completion of the primary use. This information should be considered valid for one year only.

Any comments or questions can be directed to MNFI via our e-mail at mnfi @ msu . edu < mailto : mnfi @ msu . edu > or by calling 517-373-1552.

Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:

Information valid for one year.

Acipenser fulvescens Lake sturgeon Vertebrate Animal

FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G3G4 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2008-09-04

USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:

COUNTY:

WATERSHED:

TOWN RANGE SECTIONS4, 5, 7, 8T10NR15W

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30T10NR16W

13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35T10NR17W

4, 5, 6, 7T11NR13W

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30T11NR14W

25, 33, 34, 35, 36T11NR15W

18, 19T12NR11W

13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27T12NR12W

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36T12NR13W

4308546/Croton, 4308547/Newaygo, 4308538/Bridgeton, 4308632/Twin Lake, 4308633/Dalton, 4308548/Fremont, 4308622/Muskegon East, 4308623/Muskegon West, 4308631/Wolf LakeMuskegon, Newaygo

Muskegon, Lake Michigan, Pere Marquette-White

Alasmidonta viridis Slippershell Invertebrate Animal

FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2S3STATE RANK:G4G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE:


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:


4308623/Muskegon West, 4308633/Dalton

Muskegon

Muskegon

There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.

Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552

Page 3 of 16



Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk Vertebrate Animal

FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S4STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2006-06-02


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:

TOWN RANGE SECTIONS8T10NR17W

4308633/Dalton

Muskegon

Pere Marquette-White, Muskegon

Charadrius melodus Piping plover Vertebrate Animal

FEDERAL STATUS: ESTATE STATUS:LE GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G3 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2015


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:


4308623/Muskegon West

Muskegon

Pere Marquette-White

Cirsium pitcheri Pitcher's thistle Vascular Plant

FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS:LT GLOBAL RANK: S3STATE RANK:G2G3 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2012-07-24


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon




Page 4 of 16



Coastal Plain Marsh Infertile Pond/marsh, Great Lakes Type Terrestrial Community - Other Classification

FEDERAL STATUS: STATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G2 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2010-07-21


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:

TOWN RANGE SECTIONS16, 17T10NR17W

4308633/Dalton

Muskegon

Muskegon

Dry-mesic Northern Forest Terrestrial Community - Other Classification



COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Muskegon, Pere Marquette-White

Euxoa aurulenta Dune cutworm Invertebrate Animal

FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2S3STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1989


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Pere Marquette-White, Lake Michigan, Muskegon



Page 5 of 16



Fuirena pumila Umbrella-grass Vascular Plant

FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G4 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2000


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:


4308633/Dalton

Muskegon

Muskegon

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Vertebrate Animal

FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S4STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2012


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Muskegon

Hardwood-Conifer Swamp Terrestrial Community - Other Classification



COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Muskegon



Page 6 of 16



Interdunal Wetland Alkaline Shoredunes Pond/marsh, Great Lakes Type

Terrestrial Community - Other Classification

FEDERAL STATUS: STATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G2? LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2010-07-19


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:

TOWN RANGE SECTIONS20, 21, 28T10NR17W


Muskegon


Ligumia recta Black sandshell Invertebrate Animal

FEDERAL STATUS: ESTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S1?STATE RANK:G4G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1936


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Muskegon

Lycopodiella subappressa Northern appressed clubmoss Vascular Plant

FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G2 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1992-10-22


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Muskegon



Page 7 of 16



Mesic Northern Forest Terrestrial Community - Other Classification



COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Pere Marquette-White, Muskegon

Mikania scandens Mikania Vascular Plant



COUNTY:

WATERSHED:

TOWN RANGE SECTIONS13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24T10NR17W

4308633/Dalton, 4308623/Muskegon West

Muskegon

Muskegon

Open Dunes Beach/shoredunes, Great Lakes Type Terrestrial Community - Other Classification



COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon




Page 8 of 16



Open Dunes Beach/shoredunes, Great Lakes Type Terrestrial Community - Other Classification



COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon


Polygala cruciata Cross-leaved milkwort Vascular Plant

FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S3STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2000


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:


4308633/Dalton

Muskegon

Muskegon

Potamilus alatus Pink heelsplitter Invertebrate Animal

FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: SNRSTATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE:


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Muskegon



Page 9 of 16



Pyganodon subgibbosa Round lake floater Invertebrate Animal

FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S1STATE RANK:G1Q LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1930-PRE


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Muskegon

Rhynchospora macrostachya Tall beakrush Vascular Plant

FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S3S4STATE RANK:G4 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2010-07-21


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:


4308633/Dalton

Muskegon

Muskegon

Rhynchospora scirpoides Bald-rush Vascular Plant



COUNTY:

WATERSHED:


4308633/Dalton

Muskegon

Muskegon



Page 10 of 16



Rorippa aquatica Lake cress Vascular Plant

FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G4? LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1898-06-22


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:

TOWN RANGE SECTIONS7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30T10NR16W

13, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 35T10NR17W

4308622/Muskegon East, 4308623/Muskegon West, 4308632/Twin Lake, 4308633/Dalton

Muskegon

Muskegon

Setophaga discolor Prairie warbler Vertebrate Animal

FEDERAL STATUS: ESTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S3STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1998-06


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Muskegon



Page 11 of 16



Strophostyles helvula Trailing wild Bean Vascular Plant

FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S3STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1961-08-25


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:

TOWN RANGE SECTIONS3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18T09NR16W

1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15T09NR17W

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34T10NR16W

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36T10NR17W

29, 30, 31, 32, 33T11NR16W

25, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36T11NR17W

4308622/Muskegon East, 4308623/Muskegon West, 4308632/Twin Lake, 4308633/Dalton

Muskegon

Pere Marquette-White, Muskegon, Lake Michigan

Truncilla donaciformis Fawnsfoot Invertebrate Animal

FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S1STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1936-pre


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Muskegon



Page 12 of 16



Utricularia subulata Bladderwort Vascular Plant



COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Muskegon

Zizania aquatica Wild rice Vascular Plant

FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2S3STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1916-08-10


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18T09NR16W

1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13T09NR17W

6, 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31T10NR15W

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36T10NR16W

1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36T10NR17W

27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36T11NR16W

36T11NR17W

4308621/Sullivan, 4308622/Muskegon East, 4308632/Twin Lake, 4308623/Muskegon West, 4308633/Dalton

Muskegon




Page 13 of 16



Zizania aquatica Wild rice Vascular Plant

FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2S3STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2000-10-02


COUNTY:

WATERSHED:



Muskegon

Muskegon



Page 14 of 16



Enclosed is the data requested from Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). This information is a list of Element Occurrences (EO) at the section level. In some cases, the extent of an animal's range or a community type may extend past the sections listed.

The MNFI database is an ongoing and continuously updated information base. The database is the only comprehensive single source of existing information on Michigan's endangered, threatened, or otherwise significant plant and animal species, natural plant communities, and other natural features. This database cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence, absence, or condition of the natural features in any given locality, since most sites have not been specifically or thoroughly surveyed for their occurrence. Furthermore, plant and animal populations and natural communities change with time. Therefore, the information services provided should not be regarded as a complete statement on the occurrence of special natural features of the area in question. In many cases the information may require the interpretation of a trained scientist.

The recipient(s) of the information understand that state endangered and threatened species are protected under state law (Act 451 of 1994, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Part 365, Endangered Species Protection). Any questions, observations, new findings, violations or clearance of project activities should be conducted with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Contact Lori Sargent or Todd Hogrefe at (517) 373-1263. The recipient(s) of the information understand that federally endangered and threatened species are protected under federal law (Endangered Species Act of 1973). Any questions, observations, new findings, violations or clearance of project activities should be conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in East Lansing. Their phone number is (517) 351-2555. Recipients of the information are responsible for ensuring the protection of protected species and obtaining proper clearance before project activities begin.

By acceptance of the information services made available through MNFI the recipient understands that access to the information is provided for primary use only. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of the information. There should be no redistribution of the information. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection. Additionally, since the information is constantly being updated MNFI requests that any information service provided by MNFI is destroyed upon completion of the primary use. This information should be considered valid for one year only.

This information is used to guide conservation and land management activities. Some of the element records are historical. While this information may not be important for regulatory purposes, it is important for management and restoration purposes and for scientific use.

State Protection Status Code DefinitionsE = Endangered T = Threatened SC = Special concern X = Presumed extirpated (legally 'threatened' if rediscovered)

Federal Protection Status Code DefinitionsLE = Listed endangered LT = Listed threatened LELT = Partly listed endangered and partly listed threatened PDL = Proposed delist E(S/A) = Endangered based on similarities/appearance PS = Partial status (federally listed in only part of its range) C = Species being considered for federal status

Global Heritage Status Rank DefinitionsThe priority assigned by NatureServe < http :// www . natureserve . org >'s national office for data collection and protection based upon the element's status throughout its entire world-wide range. Criteria not based only on number of occurrences; other critical factors also apply. Note that ranks are frequently combined.

G1 = Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences range-wide or very few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G2 = Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range (e.g. a single western state, a physiographic region in the East) or because of other factor(s) making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range; in terms of occurrences, in the range of

21 to 100. G4 = Apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. G5 = Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. GH = Of historical occurrence throughout its range, i.e. formerly part of the established biota, with the expectation that it may be rediscovered (e.g. Bachman's Warbler). GU = Possibly in peril range-wide, but status uncertain; need more information. GX = Believed to be extinct throughout its range (e.g. Passenger Pigeon with virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered). G? = Incomplete data Q = Taxonomy uncertain T = Subspecies U = Unmappable through out the global geographic extent ? = Questionable

Subnational Heritage Status Rank DefinitionsThe priority assigned by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory for data collection and protection based upon the element's status within the state. Criteria not based only on number of occurrences; other critical factors also apply. Note that ranks are frequently combined.

S1 = Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation in the state. S2 = Imperiled in state because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3 = Rare or uncommon in state (on the order of 21 to 100 occurrences). S4 = Apparently secure in state, with many occurrences. S5 = Demonstrably secure in state and essentially ineradicable under present conditions. SA = Accidental in state, including species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or twice or only at very great intervals, hundreds or even thousands of miles outside their usual range. SE = An exotic established in the state; may be native elsewhere in North America (e.g. house finch or catalpa in eastern states). SH = Of historical occurrence in state and suspected to be still extant. SN = Regularly occurring, usually migratory and typically nonbreeding species. SR = Reported from state, but without persuasive documentation which would provide a basis for either accepting or rejecting the report. SRF = Reported falsely (in error) from state but this error persisting in the literature. SU = Possibly in peril in state, but status uncertain; need more information. SX = Apparently extirpated from state.



Page 15 of 16





Page 16 of 16




Appendix D: Reference Materials

U/

G

TELE

U/

G

ELE

C

U/G T

ELE

U/G E

LEC

SAN MH

RIM 585.93

6" SSW 582.63

6" E 582.53

4" W 583.73

4" METAL

6" CLAY

6"

CLA

Y

SAN MH

(PAVED OVER)

62.7’

36.1’

2’ TELE

PANEL

A/C

UNIT1 STORY METAL BLDG

2" CONDUIT

GAS SERVICE

ELEC METER

8" ROOF DRAIN

INV. 585.73

2" CONDUIT

2" CONDUIT

TOWER

LEGS

CONC BLOCK

RET WALL

w/ FENCE

36.1’

40.2’

13.9’

26.3’

2’ FLOOR DRAIN

NO PIPES VISIBLE

(UNDER TOOL CRIB)

DOOR

DOOR

1 STORY METAL BLDG

61.6’

61.6’

36.1’

DOOR

DOOR

8.0’

5.9’

SHED

CHEMICAL

STORAGE

METAL BLDG8.

7’

6.7’

26.3’

ELEC

JUNCTION

BOXES

ELEC

JUNCTION

BOXES

TELE

CABINET

ELEC METER

w/ GAS SERVICE

BELOW

GR

AVEL P

ATH

6"X6" WOOD

RET WALL

SEA WALL

METAL HANDRAIL

WATER ELEV 577.5

2-01-11

WOOD

FENCE

ELEC

PANELS

8" ROOF DRAIN

INV. 585.23

1 STORY

BLOCK BLDG

2 STORY

FRAME BLDG

COVERED PORCH

LAKE

MIC

HIG

AN

8" CONC

ST. CURB

ELEC

TRANSFORMER

FF = 586.50

FF = 585.85

BE

AC

H STR

EET

NOAA

LAKE MICHIGAN FIELD STATION

BM

BM-1

BM

BM-2

584.9X

586.7X

585.5X

585.3X

585.8X

585.6X

585.3X

585.9X

586.5X

586.5X

583.4X

583.4X

583.7X

RIP-RAP

RIP-RAP

RIP-RAP

RIP-RAP

RIP-RAP

2" CONDUIT

ABOVE GROUND

2" CONDUIT

UNDERGROUND

EX

GAS

EX

GAS

ESTIMATED LOCATION OF

4" DUCT w/ 1-50 PAIR

OF COPPER CABLES

INSIDE.

SANITARY SERVICE

NORTH TO 2 STORY

NOT VISIBLE

COAST GUARD FACILITY

PW

PW

MUSKEGON CHANNEL

BMBM

BM

585

580

585

580

580

583

585

588

587

587

585

589

581

586

587

589

588

588

587

586

585

586

586

580

579

585

584

587

SUITE 400

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

NOAA LAKE MICHIGAN FIELD STATION

CITY OF MUSKEGON, MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN

TRANSYSTEM INC.

2400 PERSHING ROAD

Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525

Fax : (616) 364-6955

Date : 2/07/11Project No. : 2110057

Telephone : (616) 364-8491

3355 Evergreen Drive NE

OF

BY

1431 BEACH STREET

KANSAS CITY, MO 64108

FOR

N

SCALE: 1" = 20’

40’20’10’0’

= HANDRAIL

= FENCE

= SANITARY SEWER

= MANHOLE

= STORM SEWER

= FLOOR DRAIN

= U/G TELEPHONE

= U/G ELECTRICAL

= HYDRANT

1. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON OBSERVED

EVIDENCE AS WELL AS INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE VARIOUS

UTILITY COMPANIES AND THESE LOCATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

APPROXIMATE. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

NOT SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING.

2. UTILITY INFORMATION

SANITARY SEWER CITY OF MUSKEGON

WATERMAIN

ELECTRIC

TELEPHONE

GAS

CITY OF MUSKEGON AND NOAA FURNISHED PLANS

CONSUMERS ENERGRY (MARKED IN FIELD)

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS (TELEPHONE/INTERNET)

DTE ENERGY (NOAA FURNISHED PLANS)

NOTES

= PORTABLE WATERPW

BRASS DISK SE CORNER OF CONC BASE

BM-1 EL. 585.15

TO TOWER (FLAGPOLE) 30’ WESTERLY OF

2 STORY NOAA BUILDING (1988 DATUM)

SET CHISELED \+" TOP SOUTHWEST

BM-2 EL. 585.69

CORNER OF ROUNDED METAL SEA WALL

FOR COAST GUARD & NOAA MARINA

(1988 DATUM)

3. THIS IS A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY

BY ARTHUR W. BRINTNALL P.S. 28407

PREIN&NEWHOF

4. IMAGERY SOURCE IS ESRI, USGS - 2008. PHOTOGRAPHY IS FOR REFERENCE USE

ONLY. USE UNDERLYING LINEWORK FOR DESIGN.

draft environmental assessment - noaa … · research (oar), great lakes ... michigan field station...

Documents